[rust-dev] std::num::pow() is inadequate / language concepts

Patrick Walton pcwalton at mozilla.com
Sat Jul 26 09:56:13 PDT 2014

On 7/26/14 5:54 AM, SiegeLordEx wrote:
> While this doesn't matter for the pow function (the alternate function
> would just have a different path/name), it matters for the special
> syntaxes. When the Iterator is no longer enough for you (there was a
> case like this in IRC recently involving mutable windows), then you have
> to abandon the for loop which is a big syntactic change (right now it
> works because it is ad-hoc).

As of last week it's not anymore.

> Similarly, when the operator overloading
> traits are insufficient, then you have to abandon that sugar as well.
> One might say "well, don't use those traits then" but that's not what
> happens in practice. In practice, people want the syntax sugar and
> therefore are guided into inefficiency. Some of BigNum's operator
> overloads shouldn't exist because they are so inefficient, and yet they
> do because people expect BigNum to act (on a syntactic level) just like
> any other number.
> So I think this is a real problem with real solutions that don't require
> going down the ad-hoc template black hole.

Well, part of the problem here is that people are going to want to write 
generic functions that take addable values. If we start making `+` and 
friends overloadable/ad-hoc, then people are going to be surprised when 
they can't pass (say) bignums to functions that want addable things.


More information about the Rust-dev mailing list