On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Jason Fager <[email protected]> wrote:
> Let me ask another way: what's wrong with thinking of ~ just as meaning > "allocate to the heap and subject to move semantics"? When would that > simplification bite me in the ass regarding owned boxes vs strs/vecs? > > I get that I should very rarely want that for things that aren't dynamic > containers or recursive data structures. But beyond that, am I ever going > to get myself in trouble not remembering the details of the difference > between how ~T works vs ~[T]? The heap allocation is a means to an end rather than a useful property. There are lots of types in the standard library with destructors, including most of the containers. There's a deeper connection between TreeMap and an owned box than between owned vectors and owned boxes.
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
