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

Reply via email to