> - No-pattern form now requires a dummy pattern. That is, we can't do:
>
> for 10.times { ... }
>
> anymore, rather we have to write:
>
> for _ in 10.times() { ... }
I will not cry much if this happens; it is a bit clever, but maybe we
could save it by using loop:
loop 10.times { ... }
and
loop { ... }
could coexist perhaps?
> Given we're discussing macro-izing the other main use of 'do' to
> generate an owning thunk Trait object, It's not entirely clear to
> me that this pattern alone warrants keeping 'do'.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you provide an example?
> I found it more interesting to note that, should we take 'in' as a new
> keyword, it's a perfectly reasonable keyword to reuse for the putative
> "allocation expressions" we've been talking about needing for supporting
> C++-like placement-new.
It seems reasonable to use for the partial binding in patterns as
well, although that might not work with for:
Instead of `foo @ Something(bar)` you'd write `Something(bar) in foo`.
Seems pretty nice.
jack.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
