We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
I haven't found other way to comment https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/11/05/view-types/, having discussion section here could help.
While the idea is noble in principle, the syntax is horrible! Please don't let it be considered in this form.
Please consider something more verbose, even the keyword to define them, something like:
struct TheType { element: Vec<u32>, option: Option<i32>, } view TheElementView: TheType { element, }
That way then can be kept named and are much easier to read, digest, refactor, less inhibitive on the learning journey.
Maybe next step would be implementations for view types?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
I haven't found other way to comment https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/11/05/view-types/, having discussion section here could help.
While the idea is noble in principle, the syntax is horrible! Please don't let it be considered in this form.
Please consider something more verbose, even the keyword to define them, something like:
That way then can be kept named and are much easier to read, digest, refactor, less inhibitive on the learning journey.
Maybe next step would be implementations for view types?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: