I don't think it introduces any ambiguity. The optional "in" is similar to the optional "else" in "if". I'm pretty sure this grammar would suffice:
alloc_expr : "~" expr in_tail ? ; in_tail : "in" expr ; The expr of in_tail would need to be considered a 'place' (some sort of trait I assume) by the typechecker. Ending in_tail with an expr shouldn't be a problem (lambda_expr does it). The parser can unambiguously tell if there is an in_tail present by simply checking for the "in" keyword. On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Ziad Hatahet <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Eric Reed <[email protected]>wrote: > >> In either case, I think keeping ~ as sugar for allocating on the exchange >> heap would be nice (i.e. "~expr" is sugar for "~expr in Unique" or "put >> expr in Unique"). >> > > `box expr in place` reads nicely too. I don't know about any ambiguity in > the syntax though. > > -- > Ziad > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
