On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Diggory Hardy <[email protected]> wrote: > > For me, the biggest plus of your proposal is uniformity: e.g. someone could > implement something like C++'s std::bitset and have it look syntactically > equivalent to Vector<T> (although given that std::bitset is not very useful > and Boost's "Pointer Containers" are redundant in both C++11 and Rust, I'm > struggling to find an example where this is actually needed). Given the three > big drawbacks (implementation effort, syntax and pattern matching) it may not > be worth it.
There's still a need for smart pointers not defined in the library. Rust doesn't provide a built-in reference-counted pointer (variants of which can include atomic reference counting and weak pointer support) or a unique pointer with an allocator parameter. Wrapping foreign libraries often requires defining new smart pointer types too. There are a nearly limitless number of containers that generic literals would be useful for, including alternative vector implementations like small vectors and ropes. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
