`let mut` makes more sense to me than `mut` simply because `let` is already a declarator. mut, to me, is an attribute, not a declarator. I think we should keep the `let mut` syntax because it's still a `let` (with regard to scope), but it's mutable. Concise? Eh, it's consistent and predictable.
Cheers, Jeaye On Apr 2, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Gareth Smith wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
