3 ms·

Also, there are several different ways to pass self: `self`, `mut self`, `&self`, `&mut self`, and they have very different semantics. Rust could have taken th

• masklinn 4y ago
  > Rust could have taken the C++ route here: `fn static foo()`, `fn foo()`, `fn mut foo()`, `fn &mut foo()`, etc. `fn Box foo()`? `fn Arc foo()`? It also requires more parser lookahead. The `mut` case is also very odd, as it's not part of the function API (it just configures the binding of the internal local). Plus if self was implicit it likely would need to be a keyword, so that wouldn't be a usecase at all anymore.
  • pkolaczk 4y ago
    IMHO that would be a dead end. I prefer passing self explicitly and I still hope it will be possible to bind self partially in the future, e.g bind only one field. Currently if you call a function that e.g returns a reference to a field, the compiler borrows the whole self, not the field. So partial borrows are supported partially : they can't cross function boundaries.
    • masklinn 4y ago
      Yeah partial borrows are not part of the file system, which makes a lot of sense as it would severely leak implementation details. I regularly get frustrated but I don’t really see an easy alternative, it’s be a lot of work having it work let alone contextually (e.g. from pub functions for pub fields but not for private types / fields), and how would you even express the borrows / holes?