On 01/01/14 00:55, Armin Ronacher wrote:
Hi,
On 30/12/2013 17:29, Patrick Walton wrote:
This is the first time I've heard of this as a missing feature, and I'm
opposed. This would make typechecking significantly more complex.
I'm not saying someone should add decltype :) Just that from using
the iterators we have now it becomes quite obvious that there are
missing tools to use them to the fullest extend.
If we were to have unboxed closures similar to C++, where each closure
is an (implicit) unique type, we'd likely need something like decltype
(well, decltype(auto)) to make it possible to return them and things
containing them, e.g. higher-order iterators like .map and .filter.
(cc https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/3228 and
https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/10448)
Huon
Is `proc` not sufficient? We could prioritize adding unboxed closures,
but since they're backwards compatible as far as I know, I don't see a
major need to add them before 1.0.
Procs can be called once.
It'd be best to file specific issues here. I'm sympathetic to wanting to
adding more features if they're necessary, but none of the *specific*
things mentioned in this post seem like blockers to me.
I will surely file issues for things that i encounter. It's just that
I was a bit surprised to see that there are ambitions to stabilize the
language quickly. It just feels like that might be to early.
Being active in the Python community I can tell you that a Python 3.0
was the worst decision ever. It would be a shame if a Rust 2.0
suffers from the same problems.
Regards,
Armin
_______________________________________________
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
