On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Patrick Walton <pcwal...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/13 7:25 PM, Michael Letterle wrote:
>>
>> I've got to say that the "do" syntax is one of the things that
>> appeals to me about Rust, and will probably appeal to the people
>> that Steve Klabnik is drawing to the language with Rust for Rubyists.
>>
>> It might seem like a small thing but the effects on the type of
>> programs you can write, it actually has a pretty profound effect, IMO.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Arcieri
>>
>>
>> I agree actually, I was using do to implement some convenience logic and
>> my code went from:
>>
>> do function { someotherFunction() };
>>
>> to
>>
>> function(|| someotherFunction());
>>
>> Maybe I'm abusing something here, but I found the first format more
>> intuitive and elegant...
>>
>> I know there's rumblings about io conditions going away, but the change
>> also makes that more awkward... :/
>
>
> The point of this change was to got rid of closure type inference. With the
> old rules it was not possible to see whether you were allocating without
> looking at the type signature of the function you're calling. Moreover the
> capture rules are extremely different depending on the type of closure it
> is. It's too much magic for Rust.
>
Maybe `do` can just change from procs to closures. I can't really say
how often I've actually wanted a proc. Task bodies are a far minority
compared to other uses of do, from the backlash, and I don't find
`spawn(proc() { ... })` that unappealing.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
