+1 agreed on both accounts.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Benjamin Striegel
<ben.strie...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I don't agree that the type of a function and the return type of a
> function are the same thing (specifically, the type of the function
> contains the return type). :) If nothing else, this would make the function
> signatures of higher-order functions much harder to read IMO.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:29 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<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
