On 1/1/14 9:13 PM, Palmer Cox wrote:
To me, this doesn't sound as much like a proposal for a change in syntax as a proposal to remove a bit of magic that Rust is currently doing. I don't know that I'm necessarily in favor or that though, since it would certainly make code more wordy. That wordiness might be nice, however, if it makes it clearer where variables might be mutated (eg: imagine that foo() is originally defined to take a & ,so bar() assumed that the variable won't be mutated. However foo() is later redefined to take a &mut which silently breaks bar()'s assumption about foo()).
That's a much more interesting question. I do worry about the verbosity though, as you said.
In general I feel like we should either have autoborrowing in as many places as reasonably possible or autoborrowing nowhere.
Patrick _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
