Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
Bonus: BoxT, OwnT, HeapT would play nicer with allocators (in terms of syntax) than ~T. On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Bill Myers bill_my...@outlook.com wrote: Something like this will work, yes. It'll probably look more like: Box::new(*x) This will be described in some of the RFCs that are coming up soon. Awesome! We should really get rid of the ~T syntax in favor of FooT (where Foo = Box, Own, Heap, etc.), since it is deceptively simple for something that should in fact be rarely used. ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev -- Clark. Key ID : 0x78099922 Fingerprint: B292 493C 51AE F3AB D016 DD04 E5E3 C36F 5534 F907 ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
Something like this will work, yes. It'll probably look more like: Box::new(*x) This will be described in some of the RFCs that are coming up soon. Awesome! We should really get rid of the ~T syntax in favor of FooT (where Foo = Box, Own, Heap, etc.), since it is deceptively simple for something that should in fact be rarely used. ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:21:20AM -0400, comex wrote: If I have x: [char, ..5], I can use ~*x to get an owned version without a lot of typing. Would it be too insane to have that work for [char] or str with DST? Something like this will work, yes. It'll probably look more like: Box::new(*x) This will be described in some of the RFCs that are coming up soon. Niko ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
[rust-dev] Removing ~foo
Hi everyone, I'd like to remove the `~foo` literal syntax for owned strings in both expressions and patterns. After dynamically sized types, this syntax is the last remnant of the strange parser behavior by which the parser does something different for `~foo` and `~(foo)` (i.e. by which it looks at the next token when it sees a sigil and does something different than it would otherwise). The new replacement for `~foo` will be `foo.to_owned()`. You can also use the `fmt!()` macro or the `.to_str()` function. Post-DST, you will likely also be able to write `Heap::from(foo)`. This has no effect on constants since `~foo` is not allowed there anyway. Patrick ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
I can finally retire that bookmark to https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2013-April/003867.html ! ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Steve Klabnik st...@steveklabnik.comwrote: I can finally retire that bookmark to https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2013-April/003867.html ! How will that change though? Won't we still have to call `.equiv()`? Furthermore, wasn't the plan to use `box(string)` to create owned pointers? -- Ziad ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
On 04/15/2014 01:12 PM, Patrick Walton wrote: The new replacement for `~foo` will be `foo.to_owned()`. You can also use the `fmt!()` macro or the `.to_str()` function. Post-DST, you will likely also be able to write `Heap::from(foo)`. Why not `box foo`? Is that scheduled to break? -SL ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
`box foo` would create a SomeBox'static str, as outlined in the meeting notes: box foo - Heap'static Str foo.to_owned() - HeapStr (or ~Str) Heap::from(foo) - HeapStr (or ~Str) Rc::from(foo) - RcStr On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, SiegeLord slab...@aim.com wrote: On 04/15/2014 01:12 PM, Patrick Walton wrote: The new replacement for `~foo` will be `foo.to_owned()`. You can also use the `fmt!()` macro or the `.to_str()` function. Post-DST, you will likely also be able to write `Heap::from(foo)`. Why not `box foo`? Is that scheduled to break? -SL ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev -- http://octayn.net/ ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
So the new Vec and Str/StrBuf types are all reference types, correct? What happens if we pass around a borrowed or owned pointer to one of these types? Won't there be an extra level of indirection to get to the underlying data pointer? -- Ziad On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Corey Richardson co...@octayn.net wrote: `box foo` would create a SomeBox'static str, as outlined in the meeting notes: box foo - Heap'static Str foo.to_owned() - HeapStr (or ~Str) Heap::from(foo) - HeapStr (or ~Str) Rc::from(foo) - RcStr On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, SiegeLord slab...@aim.com wrote: On 04/15/2014 01:12 PM, Patrick Walton wrote: The new replacement for `~foo` will be `foo.to_owned()`. You can also use the `fmt!()` macro or the `.to_str()` function. Post-DST, you will likely also be able to write `Heap::from(foo)`. Why not `box foo`? Is that scheduled to break? -SL ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev -- http://octayn.net/ ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
On 15/04/14 02:25 PM, Ziad Hatahet wrote: So the new Vec and Str/StrBuf types are all reference types, correct? What happens if we pass around a borrowed or owned pointer to one of these types? Won't there be an extra level of indirection to get to the underlying data pointer? There's close to no reason to store `VecT` or `StrBuf` in an owned box, and very little reason to pass around a reference to them. You can obtain a slice (either [T] or mut [T]) into `VecT` and the same goes for strings. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
On 04/15/2014 10:12 AM, Patrick Walton wrote: Hi everyone, I'd like to remove the `~foo` literal syntax for owned strings in both expressions and patterns. After dynamically sized types, this syntax is the last remnant of the strange parser behavior by which the parser does something different for `~foo` and `~(foo)` (i.e. by which it looks at the next token when it sees a sigil and does something different than it would otherwise). The new replacement for `~foo` will be `foo.to_owned()`. You can also use the `fmt!()` macro or the `.to_str()` function. Post-DST, you will likely also be able to write `Heap::from(foo)`. This has no effect on constants since `~foo` is not allowed there anyway. Thanks, Patrick. Full steam ahead. Let's get DST done. ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
Would it be worth introducing an own!() macro for this purpose? I came across this suggestion on the reddit thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/2340zb/rustdev_removing_foo/ -- Ziad On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.comwrote: Hi everyone, I'd like to remove the `~foo` literal syntax for owned strings in both expressions and patterns. After dynamically sized types, this syntax is the last remnant of the strange parser behavior by which the parser does something different for `~foo` and `~(foo)` (i.e. by which it looks at the next token when it sees a sigil and does something different than it would otherwise). The new replacement for `~foo` will be `foo.to_owned()`. You can also use the `fmt!()` macro or the `.to_str()` function. Post-DST, you will likely also be able to write `Heap::from(foo)`. This has no effect on constants since `~foo` is not allowed there anyway. Patrick ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
On 15/04/14 04:28 PM, Ziad Hatahet wrote: Would it be worth introducing an own!() macro for this purpose? I came across this suggestion on the reddit thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/2340zb/rustdev_removing_foo/ -- Ziad I think using the term own for that would greatly increase confusion. An unboxed value is just as owned as one placed in an owned box. I don't really think we need any sugar beyond `to_owned()` for allocating memory dynamically and copying over a string. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Re: [rust-dev] Removing ~foo
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.com wrote: Hi everyone, I'd like to remove the `~foo` literal syntax for owned strings in both expressions and patterns. After dynamically sized types, this syntax is the last remnant of the strange parser behavior by which the parser does something different for `~foo` and `~(foo)` (i.e. by which it looks at the next token when it sees a sigil and does something different than it would otherwise). If I have x: [char, ..5], I can use ~*x to get an owned version without a lot of typing. Would it be too insane to have that work for [char] or str with DST? ___ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
