+1 for keeping the syntax as is i.e. the -> as part of the return signature. It's more readable and it does not mislead people into the fact that there is no partial function application in rust (which IMHO is one of the main reasons to keep the syntax the same between argument and return types).
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Niko Matsakis <n...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:59:07AM +1000, Brendan Zabarauskas wrote: > > On 31/07/2013, at 7:29 AM, Graydon Hoare <gray...@mozilla.com> wrote: > > > > > we used to use [T,U,V] like Scala, but user feedback decisively > rejected it. My kingdom > > > for a few extra bracket characters! > > > > > > Maybe I should be more dictatorial and less democratic when it comes to > > > such things; I'm a bit of a pushover. > > > > Damn, that's a shame. Feel free to use your Benevolent Dictator For Life > role in future! The users will thank you in the end :) > > > > *shudders at the issues caused by <> delimeters* > > While I tend to prefer `[]` visually, I don't see how it solves any of > the ambiguities that arise in parsing, if that's what you're referring > to. At least not in our case. > > > Niko > _______________________________________________ > 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
