2 ms·
> There are so many places where more concise syntax wouldn’t even hurt safety and they forgo it anyways. Can you give some examples of this? If there are ways
by JoshTriplett 4y ago
> There are so many places where more concise syntax wouldn’t even hurt safety and they forgo it anyways.
Can you give some examples of this? If there are ways we could simplify the language without hurting existing use cases, we should consider doing so.
- alphanullmeric 4y agoNo default arguments, named parameters, variadic functions and generics, no C-style arrow operator, the whole default trait thing (why can’t you shorten it to just `..`?). And a bunch of awful reasoning to defend these decisions. Named function arguments are bad but `Iterator<Item=T>` is fine? Default arguments are bad but default trait implementations are fine? Something something implicit behaviour but type inference is ok? It’s to the point where idiomatic rust means writing a three different structs and enums to call a function.