On 11/8/13 2:00 PM, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
So, the core question is whether we think of str as an object or as a
pointer. Either we see it as an object (with fixed size, 3 words), which
internally holds a nested pointer to a dynamically-sized region of
characters; or we see it as a direct smart pointer to this array.
The "physics" of str seem to be the former, but the abstraction
presented to the programmer is the latter. Of course, there's also value
in providing clean abstractions, but this is a leaky one. For example,
it isn't very clean to have a concrete type T which allows ~T, &T, @T,
*T but forbids having a simple T (unless one is talking about a trait,
which str isn't). It is weird and causes all sort of edge cases when
trying to write generic code.
You're arguing that we shouldn't have dynamically sized types, but I ask
what your solution to `~Trait` is then.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
