On 1/2/14 2:49 PM, Vadim wrote:
I'd say it should be i(mut x, ...), though in this case inferring borrow
is not possible because of the lambda. But if this were a standalone
function, e.g. the f() above, one could write "i(mut x, f);"
Regarding mutation-polymorphic generics, yes, it may not be possible to
mut-annotate them. I would just let it slide for "pass-through" types
like T, but require annotations in non-generic code.
Not the best solution, but it just bothers me that we worry about the
"mutability hazard" at the top level of the call chain, but then
completely forget about it inside the callee.
I'd rather do something principled and easy to understand than to have
ad-hoc rules that a user has to memorize. What current Rust does is easy
to understand IMO: it's the same as C.
Patrick
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
