On 19/05/14 20:52, Brian Anderson wrote:
On 05/15/2014 09:30 PM, Tommi wrote:
On 2014-05-16, at 7:14, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/05/14 12:10 AM, Tommi wrote:
I was just wondering, why do we have to explicitly specify the
lifetimes of references returned from functions?
Michael (cc'ing rust-dev)-
On 22 May 2014, at 16:32, Michael Woerister michaelwoeris...@posteo.net wrote:
Lately I've been thinking that it might be nice if one could omit the
lifetimes from the list of generic parameters, as in:
fn fooT(x: 'a T, y: 'b MyStruct) - ('b int, 'a uint)
Hi,
On 05/22/2014 04:32 PM, Michael Woerister wrote:
Lately I've been thinking that it might be nice if one could omit the
lifetimes from the list of generic parameters, as in:
fn fooT(x: 'a T, y: 'b MyStruct) - ('b int, 'a uint)
instead of
fn foo'a, 'b, T(x: 'a T, y: 'b MyStruct) - ('b int,
On 22.05.2014 17:54, Felix S. Klock II wrote:
Michael (cc'ing rust-dev)-
On 22 May 2014, at 16:32, Michael Woerister michaelwoeris...@posteo.net wrote:
Lately I've been thinking that it might be nice if one could omit the lifetimes
from the list of generic parameters, as in:
fn fooT(x: 'a
On 05/15/2014 09:30 PM, Tommi wrote:
On 2014-05-16, at 7:14, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/05/14 12:10 AM, Tommi wrote:
I was just wondering, why do we have to explicitly specify the lifetimes of
references returned from functions? Couldn't the compiler figure those
On 2014-05-17, at 3:54, Kevin Ballard ke...@sb.org wrote:
On May 15, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/05/14 12:48 AM, Tommi wrote:
On 2014-05-16, at 7:35, Steven Fackler sfack...@gmail.com wrote:
Type annotations are not there for the compiler; they're
On May 15, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/05/14 12:48 AM, Tommi wrote:
On 2014-05-16, at 7:35, Steven Fackler sfack...@gmail.com wrote:
Type annotations are not there for the compiler; they're there for people
reading the code. If I want to use some
I was just wondering, why do we have to explicitly specify the lifetimes of
references returned from functions? Couldn't the compiler figure those
lifetimes out by itself by analyzing the code in the function?
___
Rust-dev mailing list
On 16/05/14 12:10 AM, Tommi wrote:
I was just wondering, why do we have to explicitly specify the lifetimes of
references returned from functions? Couldn't the compiler figure those
lifetimes out by itself by analyzing the code in the function?
Type inference is local to functions, so it
On 16/05/14 12:14 AM, Daniel Micay wrote:
On 16/05/14 12:10 AM, Tommi wrote:
I was just wondering, why do we have to explicitly specify the lifetimes of
references returned from functions? Couldn't the compiler figure those
lifetimes out by itself by analyzing the code in the function?
On 2014-05-16, at 7:14, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/05/14 12:10 AM, Tommi wrote:
I was just wondering, why do we have to explicitly specify the lifetimes of
references returned from functions? Couldn't the compiler figure those
lifetimes out by itself by analyzing the
Type annotations are not there for the compiler; they're there for people
reading the code. If I want to use some function I don't want to be forced
to read the entire implementation to figure out what the lifetime of the
return value is.
Steven Fackler
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Tommi
12 matches
Mail list logo
