Argh, I forgot about macros! Nevermind then. :P
On 09/25/2013 08:33 PM, Benjamin Striegel wrote:
Note that we reserve the dollar sign ($) for use in macros, so it
wouldn't be able to appear in regular Rust code without some sort of
escaping mechanism. I also don't see anything like this happening
before Rust 2.0 at the earliest.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Marvin Löbel <loebel.mar...@gmail.com
<mailto:loebel.mar...@gmail.com>> wrote:
We don't use the symbol in our syntax, but are using functional
paradigm that sometimes result in a bit hard to read nested calls.
I'd propose that it works similar to `do`, in that it allows to
move the last expression of an function or method call after the
parentheses, though they would still remain required for ambiguity
reasons:
~~~
a(b(c(1,d(2,3,4,e()))))
== a() $ b() $ c(1) $ d(2,3,4) $ e()
let v: ~[uint] = from_iter() $ range(0, 100);
~~~
In that sense, it wouldn't really be an operator but syntactic
sugar for a function call.
It might even be possible to replace `do` with it, though the now
required parentheses would make it longer:
~~~
do task::spawn { ... }
task::spawn() $ || { ... }
~~~
Downside is of course that it adds another symbol, which could
alienate more potentiall users, and it could mean a
shift-away-from or at least an inconsistency-with methods and
method chaining in general.
Which would be ironic because I wanted it in some complicated
Iterator chain. ;)
It could of course always be implemented as a syntax extension,
and in any case I don't expect this to get any attention before
Rust 2.0. :)
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org <mailto: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
