On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Daniel Micay <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm as sympathetic as anybody to want to reduce the number of pointer types > > in the language, as it's folks' #1 complaint about Rust. But I think this > > one is probably a necessary evil. > > > > > > Patrick > > We can reduce the number of pointer types in the language by > describing the language with semantic terms rather than implementation > details of the compiler. The safe subset of Rust lacks pointers in the > same way that a language like Ruby lacks them. > > For example, `~[T]` is described as a unique vector, despite being a > pointer. It feels like we're going out of our way to make the language > complex when we use a term like "borrowed pointer" instead of just > calling it a reference like Java. > > The documentation would be so much simpler if it just referred to > references and unique/managed boxes. Rust only has two types that are > semantically pointers, `*` and `*mut`.
+infinity -- Your ship was destroyed in a monadic eruption. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
