4 ms·

Thanks for the clarification; I do realise this. The context in which the question arose was that several of the "for" arguments seem to state something to the

by 4bpp 12y ago

Thanks for the clarification; I do realise this. The context in which the question arose was that several of the "for" arguments seem to state something to the effect of ~ being rare in code due to only occurring in type definitions.

dbaupp 12y ago
I believe that was just addressing the fact that the type `Box<T>` is more annoying than the type `~T`, since the `box expr` replacement for the `~expr` expression is relatively nice (admittedly I wasn't following the discussion in great detail).