On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Benjamin Striegel <[email protected]>wrote:
> One argument in favor of John's proposal is that: > > let mut foo = 1, > bar = 2; > > somewhat deceptively declares bar as mutable. However, a lint pass for > never-mutated mutable variables (which we'd want anyway) would catch this. > > Ouch! I think the semantics of the above is far from obvious and slightly dangerous. Alexander > It's still a rather convenient form, though. > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Benjamin Striegel > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I use it frequently enough for conciseness. I'm having a hard time >> thinking of a language that *doesn't* support a construction. Does it cause >> a problem with formalizing the grammar? >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM, John Clements >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I've recently become aware of the existence of a comma-separated >>> local-variable declaration in Rust. Would people object strongly to the >>> removal of this form? >>> >>> John >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
