On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Wojciech Miłkowski <milkow...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
There's long precedent for `->` in function type signatures in, among other languages, Haskell, ML, and OCaml. In Rust, I like it better than `:` for reasons of readability -- it visually splits up the argument and return types nicely. If it came to a vote, my vote would be to keep it. Lindsey _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev