Re: [rust-dev] getting rid of let a=3, b=4? (bikeshed alert)

[Niko Matsakis]

For what it's worth, when I was implementing `let mut` I did a straw poll at the time whether     let mut a = 1, b = 2; should declare both a and b as mutable or only a, and the response at the time was uniformly in favor of "both a and b" (which surprised me, since I had intended to do the opposite).  Niko Alexander Kjeldaas April 9, 2013 11:11 PM On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Benjamin Striegel <ben.strie...@gmail.com> 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 <ben.strie...@gmail.com> 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 <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> 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 Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev Benjamin Striegel April 9, 2013 2:16 PM 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. It's still a rather convenient form, though. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev Benjamin Striegel April 9, 2013 10:34 AM 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? _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev John Clements April 9, 2013 10:04 AM 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 Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev

_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev