While we're changing this stuff, I'd like to see lambdas allow return, now that the need for forbidding that is gone, IIRC. That's more likely to continually trip me up than unusual allocation mechanisms.
Kevin On Nov 30, 2013 10:02 AM, "Patrick Walton" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/30/13 8:32 AM, Tiffany Bennett wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Oren Ben-Kiki <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> That would help a bit, but it would still require the programmer to >> manually setup and teardown the tuples, pass them to the closure, >> and so on. We'll also need to change each and every function that >> takes an action parameter to take the extra tuple in every container >> or container-like type. And then there's the possibility of >> modifying variables... It sounds like a lot of effort working around >> something the compiler can do automatically and actually already >> does automatically; all it needs is the ability to communicate the >> programmer intent via the type system so it can support and enforce >> it. >> >> >> I agree, having annotations so that the type system can enforce safety >> is a better idea than hacking around it with alternate versions of every >> function for taking closures only used once. >> > > You don't need alternate versions: you just need one version that passes > arguments through. > > I don't agree in general that the right solution for every problem that > can be solved through the type system is in the type system. Every type > system feature has a cost; when something can be done via what's already > present in the language then it becomes difficult to justify adding more > features to what is already a quite complex type system by industry > standards. > > Patrick > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
