undefined | Better HN

0 pointsben0x5397y ago0 comments

Reading (or even writing!) rust code, you can get increasingly far without knowing what level of indirection you're operating on. I don't enjoy that. I don't personally feel like the notational burden for explicitness is enormous.

For field access/method calls, autoderef is a bigger convenience because we don't have the C++ -> operator, but I think I'd have preferred a syntax change here over the current behavior.

0 comments

Rusky7y ago

The match changes here don't bother me anywhere near as much as deref coercions do, because they preserve the level of indirection.

Deref coercion makes a &Box<T> behave like a &T (removing a level of indirection). Default binding modes only make a &(T, U) behave like a (&T, &U).

I've idly wondered whether it would have been possible to replace deref coercions with something like this. Making Box<T> behave like &T kinda works but loses you the ability to control `&T` vs `&mut T`, but maybe `x.y` where `x: &T` could "pass the reference on" giving you a `&U`.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsben0x5397y ago0 comments

For field access/method calls, autoderef is a bigger convenience because we don't have the C++ -> operator, but I think I'd have preferred a syntax change here over the current behavior.

0 comments

Rusky7y ago

The match changes here don't bother me anywhere near as much as deref coercions do, because they preserve the level of indirection.

Deref coercion makes a &Box<T> behave like a &T (removing a level of indirection). Default binding modes only make a &(T, U) behave like a (&T, &U).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse