Post #2062992
2026-05-05 15:31 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@na@pipou.academy 2026-05-05 15:51
@scrabsha@hachyderm.io interesting topic! i didn't even know there was discussion about adding that to the compiler, it's nice to see it is being considered. thanks for sharing :) a few typos i noticed, in case you want to correct them: in the first section: "dould" should probably be "could"at the end of this section: "ont" → "not"
-
@yosh@toot.yosh.is 2026-05-05 21:33
@scrabsha@hachyderm.io Do you have any thoughts about the interactions between view types and pattern types? I don't care much about the final notation, as long as both features end up working well with each other. Because both features are really cool and I want both ^^
-
@akiross@mastodon.social 2026-05-05 22:25
@scrabsha@hachyderm.io nice article!! Genuine question about the syntax: do you think it's still readable even if there're a few fields with long names and multiple views for a few arguments? With no knowledge of the topic I would have expected a "fn ... with ..." syntax, in addition to inline, because it seems it might become verbose and it might impair seeing the whole function signature at a glance.
-
@jint@hachyderm.io 2026-05-07 11:29
@scrabsha@hachyderm.io cat mode made my laugh out loud in the office haha
-
@jean_dupont@mastodon.social 2026-05-11 11:24
@scrabsha@hachyderm.io Pretty interesting topic! Glad to discover this nice inside of rust syntax development!