3 ms·

>> It wouldn't fit the syntax of the language obviously, but why not simply have the developer prefix the variable with the keyword "lifetime", rather than assi

>> It wouldn't fit the syntax of the language obviously, but why not simply have the developer prefix the variable with the keyword "lifetime", rather than assigning a symbol. ... >> The use of ' as a symbol that has any meaning on it's own has got to be one of the most stupid choices I've seen in a language > What would your syntax suggestion have been? Is the syntax suggestion he provided not applicable?

Ygg2 2y ago
> Is the syntax suggestion not applicable? Lets look at proposed syntax fn list_items<lifetime life0, lifetime life1, lifetime async_trait>( &lifetime life0 self, collection_href: &lifetime life1 str, ) -> Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = Result<Vec<ItemRef>, Error>> + Send + async_trait>> where Self: life0, life0: async_trait, life1: async_trait, I'm not going to pretend I understood what mrweasel meant fully, so I assume we can either omit generic or in parameter declaration (so I went with omitting lifetime keyword in parameters): fn list_items<lifetime life0, lifetime life1, lifetime async_trait>( &life0 self, collection_href: &life1 str, ) -> Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = Result<Vec<ItemRef>, Error>> + Send + async_trait>> where Self: life0, life0: async_trait, life1: async_trait, I guess you might be able to omit the "generic part" like so (it might be impossible, lifetime are just generics useful for lifetime tracking): fn list_items( &lifetime life0 self, collection_href: &lifetime life1 str, ) -> Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = Result<Vec<ItemRef>, Error>> + Send + async_trait>> where Self: life0, life0: async_trait, life1: async_trait, In both cases, you get a huge verbosity increase, and mix between not knowing if a value like `Self: x` is a trait with lower case or a lifetime. So you trade verbosity for more ambiguity and programmer confusion, and possibly worse error reporting (is &a b a lifetime or a missing comma e.g. &a, b).

Ygg2 2y ago

> Is the syntax suggestion not applicable? Lets look at proposed syntax fn list_items<lifetime life0, lifetime life1, lifetime async_trait>( &lifetime life0 self, collection_href: &lifetime life1 str, ) -> Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = Result<Vec<ItemRef>, Error>> + Send + async_trait>> where Self: life0, life0: async_trait, life1: async_trait, I'm not going to pretend I understood what mrweasel meant fully, so I assume we can either omit generic or in parameter declaration (so I went with omitting lifetime keyword in parameters): fn list_items<lifetime life0, lifetime life1, lifetime async_trait>( &life0 self, collection_href: &life1 str, ) -> Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = Result<Vec<ItemRef>, Error>> + Send + async_trait>> where Self: life0, life0: async_trait, life1: async_trait, I guess you might be able to omit the "generic part" like so (it might be impossible, lifetime are just generics useful for lifetime tracking): fn list_items( &lifetime life0 self, collection_href: &lifetime life1 str, ) -> Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = Result<Vec<ItemRef>, Error>> + Send + async_trait>> where Self: life0, life0: async_trait, life1: async_trait, In both cases, you get a huge verbosity increase, and mix between not knowing if a value like `Self: x` is a trait with lower case or a lifetime. So you trade verbosity for more ambiguity and programmer confusion, and possibly worse error reporting (is &a b a lifetime or a missing comma e.g. &a, b).