I didn't raise the subject since it seems late for a huge syntax change
but if I had to change something about the function syntax I would
change it to:
fn function (var: type, ... -> returnType) {...}
I really think it would be more readable especially in the case of
Brendan Zabarauskas exemple :
fn hof<T>(x: T, f: fn(T->T) -> fn(T->T)) { … }
Le 30/07/13 04:08, Brendan Zabarauskas a écrit :
This would make function signatures harder to read in some instances,
particularly when using closures and higher-order functions:
let f: fn(T): T = …;
fn hof<T>(x: T, f: fn(T): T): fn(T): T { … }
Compare to the current syntax:
let f: fn(T) -> T = …;
fn hof<T>(x: T, f: fn(T) -> T) -> fn(T) -> T { … }
~Brendan
On 30/07/2013, at 9:29 AM, Wojciech Miłkowski <milkow...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I'm observing rust development for some time, and I must say it slowly
encourages me to use it. Especially the progress from Perl-like syntax
to more sane and quiet form is enjoyable.
That said I wonder why the function definition has form:
fn name(var: type, ...) -> return_type {...}
instead of more unified:
fn name(var: type, ...): return_type {...}
Is it constructed to mimic mathematical form f(x)->y or is there other
reason i.e. syntax ambiguity?
Cheers,
W.
_______________________________________________
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
