Patrick Walton wrote:
> I slightly prefer `:` to `->` but never enough to bring it up.
Josh Leverette wrote:
> That modification could be subtle, yet powerful. It would make the language
> more
> consistent, at the very least.
Strong +1 if it could be considered, but I can live with that.
Regards,
W.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Josh Leverette <coder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That modification could be subtle, yet powerful. It would make the language
> more consistent, at the very least.
>
> Sincerely,
> Josh
>
> On Jul 29, 2013 7:29 PM, "Patrick Walton" <pwal...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/29/13 4:29 PM, Wojciech Miłkowski wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm observing rust development for some time, and I must say it slowly
>>> encourages me to use it. Especially the progress from Perl-like syntax
>>> to more sane and quiet form is enjoyable.
>>> That said I wonder why the function definition has form:
>>> fn name(var: type, ...) -> return_type {...}
>>> instead of more unified:
>>> fn name(var: type, ...): return_type {...}
>>>
>>> Is it constructed to mimic mathematical form f(x)->y or is there other
>>> reason i.e. syntax ambiguity?
>>
>>
>> Personal preference of Graydon, I believe. This is one of the few
>> decisions that has survived from Rust 0.1 :)
>>
>> I slightly prefer `:` to `->` but never enough to bring it up.
>>
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
