I’m curious what the technical reasons are, because I’m not sure why it wouldn’t work (it’s just an operator, after all).
In any case, I prefer @ for aesthetic reasons. Also, this operator should probably bind pretty tightly (e.g. 1 * 2@Gc would place the 2 not the 1*2), but it’s often confusing to have word operators bind tightly. For example, I think `as` binds reasonably tightly, but I still can’t remember its exact precedence. -Kevin On Dec 3, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Benjamin Striegel <[email protected]> wrote: > If `expr @ place` suffices then you'd think that re-using `in` keyword as per > `expr in place` would also work, but I believe we rejected that for technical > reasons in past discussions. And if those technical reasons no longer apply, > I'd like to motion that `in` looks way better than `@` there. :) > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Michael Woerister > <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for `expr @ place` > > > On 02.12.2013 11:57, Kevin Ballard wrote: > With @ going away another possibility is to leave ~ as the normal allocation > operator and to use @ as the placement operator. So ~expr stays the same and > placement looks either like `@place expr` or `expr@place` > > -Kevin Ballard > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
