Thanks for the explanation and link! That's exactly the kind of thing
I was looking for. :-)
I'll definitely keep my eye out for the RFC.
--Nathan
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Alex Crichton <a...@crichton.co> wrote:
>>> The syntax was pioneered before the RFC process was in effect, so it
>>> may not have an official grammar, but it looks something like:
>>>
>>> expr := 'box' expr | 'box' '(' expr ')' expr
>>>
>>> The first form is "rewritten" as `box(::std::owned::HEAP) expr` and
>>> the second form (the more general) specifies that the second
>>> expression should be placed into the first.
>>
>> Hmm. So in 'box(RC) expr', RC is an allocator? I must be
>> misunderstanding something, because I don't see how it knows from
>> that:
>> a) That it should create an Rc
>> b) How to work with and initialize the Rc struct properly
>
> The current design hasn't been written up into an RFC, but the current
> thinking is documented in the last work week's minutes [1]. They're a
> little messy, but they should be faithful to what we're thinking!
>
> The general idea was that RC isn't actually an allocator per-se, but
> rather a "boxer" which knows how to create an Rc<T> from a T. The
> "boxer" could be parameterized over an actual allocator which would
> dictate where memory comes from, but by the default allocator would
> still be the jemalloc heap. We found that the distinction between an
> allocator and a boxer gave you a bit more flexibility when it came to
> allocators in terms of re-use between pointers such as Rc, Arc, and
> Box.
>
> [1]:
> https://github.com/rust-lang/meeting-minutes/blob/master/workweek-2014-08-18/box-and-allocators.md
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
