[rust-dev] Why doesn't rust require "mut" param prefix at call site?

Vadim vadimcn at gmail.com
Wed Jan 1 22:06:14 PST 2014


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Patrick Walton <pwalton at mozilla.com> wrote:

> There is no "real answer" beyond the one I already gave: that we are
> already precisely as explicit as C, that Rust references do not actually
> have the hidden mutation hazard of C++ references, and that changing would
> place the language in a different space entirely.
>

Patrick, I disagree with this point.  Rust references *do* have hidden
mutation hazard, as do C's and C++'s pointers.  In all three, mutation
hazard is only obvious when you take an address of a stack variable.
After that, when you already have a pointer, you pass it around, and never
know who might mutate the underlying object.  And let's not forget about
the heap-allocated objects, which start out as pointers in the first place.

Well, since requiring '&' at the original borrow site doesn't really
prevent the "unexpected mutability" problem, why not drop it and eliminate
a bunch of noise from Rust sources?   And, again, if "unexpected
mutability" is what concerns people, "mut" annotation is the better way to
fix that, IMHO.


>  Please don't suggest that I am (or that anyone else on the list is) being
> dishonest.
>

My apologies, I didn't mean to imply that.

Vadim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/attachments/20140101/c26235b5/attachment.html>


More information about the Rust-dev mailing list