Right, I agree with this. Kevin's argument that C++ "new" has different
behavior is valid though, and makes me conflicted.
BTW, I was thinking about "make" as well. Go is precedent that both "new" and
"make" can coexist (though not without controversy...) Old Rust used to use
"mk" as the constructor convention.
Patrick
Benjamin Striegel <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The other suggestion that's been floated that satisfies all of these
>constraints is `alloc`, and honestly, if `new` is that unpopular maybe
>we
>should just switch to that.
>
>I much prefer `new` to `alloc`. It *is* a shame that `foo::new()` has
>to
>change, but `alloc` is much grosser than `init`. And maybe we can think
>of
>a better naming convention for constructors... perhaps `foo::make()`.
>
>Honestly, `new` seems ideal here. Easier to type than `~` and easier on
>the
>eyes than `alloc`. The only argument that I can think of against it
>would
>be if its semantics are different enough from C++ that it would cause
>more
>confusion than it alleviates.
>
>
>On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Patrick Walton
><[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/13 1:24 AM, Kevin Ballard wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of `new (x + y)`, has any thought been given to
>>>
>> differentiating `new (expr)` from placement-new?
>>
>> Yeah, this came up. We can just define new followed by `(` to resolve
>in
>> favor of placement new.
>>
>>
>> Given all this, my inclination at this point is to say that trying
>>> to
>>>
>> piggyback on C++ programmers' familiarity of `new` is actually a
>really
>> bad idea, as Rust's allocation operator differs in a few important
>ways
>> from C++. In fact, offhand I can't think of any language with a `new
>> `operator that uses it for something other than invoking a class
>> constructor.
>>
>> Well, there aren't many languages with allocation operators period:
>the
>> vast majority of languages implicitly allocate on the heap. Of those
>> languages with an allocation operator that isn't a function, it's
>> universally `new` as far as I know.
>>
>> The other suggestion that's been floated that satisfies all of these
>> constraints is `alloc`, and honestly, if `new` is that unpopular
>maybe we
>> should just switch to that. It's not that I'm unconcerned about
>`new()(1 +
>> 2)` being weird: it's that I'm more concerned about what's not going
>to
>> make C++ programmers run away.
>>
>> 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
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
