[rust-dev] 2 possible simplifications: reverse application, records as arguments
arcata at gmail.com
Mon Apr 23 10:45:37 PDT 2012
On Apr 23, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Patrick Walton <pwalton at mozilla.com> wrote:
> * We'd still need formal parameters for C interoperability. At the ABI level, a single-argument function applied to a 3-ary tuple is very different from a function with 3 arguments.
Could the rust calling convention behave similarly to the x86-64
convention, where small composite types are destructured when passed
> * It prohibits us from having optional parameters in the future (at least, not without some very hairy type checking.
Why would optional parameters need to be any more complicated than
either C++-style default values or option-typed slots?
More information about the Rust-dev