2 ms·
If I understand the ownership rules correctly, it would actually violate those rules to have the "familiar syntax". Also it seems to be Rust's thing to make thi
by Lev1a 9y ago
If I understand the ownership rules correctly, it would actually violate those rules to have the "familiar syntax". Also it seems to be Rust's thing to make things explicit, e.g. `.clone()`, not having `++`-style operators etc.
- steveklabnik 9y agoIn this case, due to the rules, it would be possible; the call to clone would be inside the method call, so you wouldn't see it. (With other signatures it may not, but Add returns a value, not a reference.) In other words, it would violate the conventions, but not the rules. (Okay so there's a _really_ obscure rule here that sill prevents this but it only matters because it's the standard library. It's not actually the signature)