[rust-dev] "let mut" <-> "var"

Samuel Williams space.ship.traveller at gmail.com
Wed Jan 29 19:09:05 PST 2014


I agree that it is syntactic salt and that the design is to discourage
mutability. I actually appreciate that point as a programmer.

w.r.t. this specific issue: I think what concerns me is that it is quite a
high burden for new programmers (I teach COSC1xx courses to new students so
I have some idea about the level of new programmers). For example, you need
to know more detail about what is going on - new programmers would find
that difficult as it is one more concept to overflow their heads.

Adding "var" as a keyword identically maps to new programmer's expectations
from JavaScript. Writing a program entirely using "var" wouldn't cause any
problems right? But, could be optimised more (potentially) if using "let"
for immutable parts.

Anyway, I'm not convinced either way, I'm not sure I see the entire picture
yet. But, if I was writing code, I'd certainly get sick of writing "let
mut" over and over again - and looking at existing rust examples, that
certainly seems like the norm..






On 30 January 2014 15:59, Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller at gmail.com>wrote:

> I guess the main gain would be less typing of what seems to be a
> reasonably common sequence, and the formalisation of a particular semantic
> pattern which makes it easier to recognise the code when you visually
> scanning it.
>
>
> On 30 January 2014 15:50, Kevin Ballard <kevin at sb.org> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Brian Anderson <banderson at mozilla.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On 01/29/2014 06:35 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
>> >> On 1/29/14 6:34 PM, Samuel Williams wrote:
>> >>> Perhaps this has been considered already, but when I'm reading rust
>> code
>> >>> "let mut" just seems to stick out all over the place. Why not add a
>> >>> "var" keyword that does the same thing? I think there are lots of good
>> >>> and bad reasons to do this or not do it, but I just wanted to propose
>> >>> the idea and see what other people are thinking.
>> >>
>> >> `let` takes a pattern. `mut` is a modifier on variables in a pattern.
>> It is reasonable to write `let (x, mut y) = ...`, `let (mut x, y) = ...`,
>> `let (mut x, mut y) = ...`, and so forth.
>> >>
>> >> Having a special "var" syntax would defeat this orthogonality.
>> >
>> > `var` could potentially just be special-case sugar for `let mut`.
>>
>> To what end? Users still need to know about `mut` for all the other uses
>> of patterns. This would reserve a new keyword and appear to duplicate
>> functionality for no gain.
>>
>> -Kevin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rust-dev mailing list
>> Rust-dev at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/attachments/20140130/9bce3f42/attachment.html>


More information about the Rust-dev mailing list