My understanding is that there used to be a problem where using `mut`
instead of `let mut` would introduce syntactic ambiguity.
The ambiguity was caused by the presence of mutable fields and/or
structural records, both of which I believe are now gone or going.
There are other, very valid, arguments against making the change, as
Graydon has pointed out, although personally I would like it to happen
because I like how `mut` is more concise than `let mut`.
Gareth
On 02/04/13 16:53, hudo wrote:
let x = get(x) / / immutable binding
mut x = get(x) / / mutable binding, instead than modified
I would have a clearer semantics and syntax of the simplified :)
Thanks!
hudo
_______________________________________________
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
