My general 2c, worthless as it might be: One of my criticisms of perl when I use it is that my cats could sit on the keyboard and produce correct code.
Sigil heavy code produces IMO a heavy mental burden. There is the popular c++ quiz question 'what does this syntax bundle do'. It's really quite pointless and just a puzzle IMO. Mostly a mental exercise to prove something..... I'd like not to endure that with Rust. Lifetime-qualifier/variable seems to be reasonable: I'd suggest further information could be stacked up with /s as Info/lifetime/variable Or Type/info/lt/variable Etc. I write lisp a lot and if verbosity is onerous, a macro can be written to shorten it. I presume/hope rust's macros are sufficient to that task. I think it's better to opt for obvious and lengthy at first and then allow power users to use shortcuts. Too many sigils is confusing to the uninitiated. Regards, Paul Nathan Sent from my iPhone On Jan 23, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Niko Matsakis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dean Thompson wrote: >> >> Personally, though, I find myself increasingly attracted to the idea of >> having a consistent notation for writing a lifetime everywhere one >> appears, independently of the & symbol. (/lt/ is the only such notation >> I've found yet that seems reasonable.) > > I like this idea too, I just don't like /lt/ for that role. > > Maybe `'`? (shades of ML) > > &'lt Foo > Foo<'lt> > > That actually doesn't look half bad to me. > > Maybe `.`? > > &.lt Foo > Foo<.lt> > > I don't like Foo<.lt>, but &.lt Foo and Foo<lt> might be ok, though it > doesn't adhere to the principle (in that lifetime names are just like any > other identifier). > > Another option: > > &{lt} Foo > Foo<{lt}> > > But the latter form feels pretty sigil heavy. > > > Niko > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
