Are there examples of structs that implement Iterator that also implement other non-Iterator related traits? Although its possible to do that, I can't think of a use case for it off the top of my head. An Iterator basically represents the state of an ongoing computation and once that computation is completed, the object is mostly uselss. It seems like it would be awkward to implement other traits for such an object. Maybe I'm not thinking of something, however.
-Palmer Cox On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Kevin Cantu <[email protected]> wrote: > Iterators are just structs which implement the "Iterator" or a related > trait, right? > > These structs which do can also implement lots of other traits, too: > no reason to make -Iter special. > > > Kevin > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Palmer Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not a big fan of Hungarian notation either. I'm not sure that having > a > > naming convention for Iterators is Hungarian notation, however. For > example, > > if you are doing Windows programming, you'll see stuff like: > > > > DWORD dwFoo = 0; > > > > In this case, the "dw" prefix on the variable indicates that we have a > DWORD > > variable. However, the Iterator suffix that I'm proposing here is a > suffix > > on the type names, not the actual variable names. So, if you are writing > > Rust code, you'd write something like this: > > > > let chunks = some_vector.chunks(50); > > > > So, the actual variable name doesn't have the Hungarian notation and the > > types aren't even generally visible since the compiler infers much of > that. > > However, someone reading through the documentation and/or code will see a > > struct named ChunkIterator and instance know how the struct behaves - as > an > > Iterator. So, I think the suffix serves less to describe the datatype and > > more to describe class of behavior that the struct implements. > > > > Anyway, as I said, I prefer #1. But, I also have done lots of Java > > programming so I'm probably much more used to verbosity than others. I'm > not > > horribly against some sort of other naming convention, either, of course, > > but I would like to see some consistency. > > > > My main motivation for opening the request was because I created > > MutChunkIter and then realized that it was named differently than > majority > > of other Iterators. I don't want to be responsible for someone reading > > through the docs and seeing something thats inconsistent for no good > reason! > > Also, I was reading through some code and happened upon a "Map" and was > > exceptionally confused about it, until I realized it was iter::Map as > > opposed to container::Map. I figured I probably wasn't the only person > that > > was going to be confused by something like this. > > > > -Palmer Cox > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Kevin Cantu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> IMHO Hungarian notation is for things the type system and tooling > >> cannot deal with. I'm not sure this is one of them... > >> > >> > >> Kevin > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
