manish can you elaborate on why "store a closure" is technically incorrect? we're trying not to do that ;)
-
-
No code only handles closures; it also takes fns. Experienced users take to using "closure" to mean both, but to novices it can be unclear.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
In fact the communication gap here was precisely because I *don't* take closures to mean both at first.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"store closure in struct? That sounds like something from the type alias impl trait rfc you can't even do that yet!"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't see folks using "closure" for Fn* these days. They used to, but this was pre-1.0, just after we actually *did* have closure types
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'd suggest calling them callables.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
*able is considered an anti-pattern in trait names
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
OK, then perhaps CallMe?
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
maybe
2 replies 2 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @steveklabnik @llogiq and
Congrats steve, you made this whole twitter canoe worth it
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
i would like to be excluded from this narrative,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.