Thanks for your input! It's important to take a critical eye to the language, especially from newcomers.
However, I think the self value and its type, Self, are a quite natural pairing. The Rust convention of making types in UpperCamelCase should visually cue what the difference is. Also, they appear different places in the syntax, so I think there's not much danger of mis-reading one from the other once you know the difference. Misusing one for the other by a user who doesn't will just result in a compilation error, and so a confused user could quickly get help on what's wrong. All of your other suggestions feel much more un-natural to me in the context of Rust. I don't think you will have much support in this cause, unfortunately. On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Mario Sopena Novales <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've been learning Rust for the last couple of weeks and I'm quite excited > with it. My experience is mainly in C and Rust feels like a nice > improvement. Thank you for the hard work! > > I've recently found this bit of the tutorial: > http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/tutorial.html#type-parameterized-traits > > and it got me confused for a while because of the similarity between self > and Self (just the 'S' in caps) even when they refer to completely different > things. > > I would suggest to change the Self identifier to something less similar to > self which also hints as to what it is like selfT, Tself, self_type or > type(self). Maybe someone with more Rust experience can come up with better > suggestions. > > I just think that self/Self is quite confusing and harder to parse for the > eye. > > I'm happy to write a RFC if you think the idea has some merit. > > Mario > > _______________________________________________ > 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
