mmm. I did notice that but the arrow of implication still makes more sense to me, as with in Rust's
let fun: fn(Arg) -> Ret = |arg| arg.val;
Conversation
we do use => amusingly, but only for match arms.
1
1
indeed we don't, for whatever reason we decided we like Ruby closures better.
1
1
ohhh yeah we decided fn() was fine for the simple case and for the complex case uhh
so
it turns out
we have three different function traits :D
1
1
FnOnce<Args>
call_once(self, Args) -> Output
FnMut<Args>
call_mut(&mut self, Args) -> Output
Fn<Args>
call(&self, Args) -> Output
2
1
yeah… really screams out for some sort of polymorphism over closure usage… or something like that
2
1
tbh this is fine? because they're all supertraits and because lifetimes, ownership, and mutability matters, you can and indeed must specify the strictness of your trait bound, which lets you accept either all closures (FnOnce) or ones that are safe to call repeatedly (Fn).
1
1
Yeah I agree it works fine in Rust, yeah… but I think I'd want closures to be able to support other substructural properties beyond what Rust supports? And then you start getting more and more traits? But yeah I haven't thought it through carefully yet 😅
like?
a language can't really embed an unbounded semantics, I am more of a language diversity person.
1
Thinking about stuff like information flow, stage, and usage counts - say if your language supported being able to specify a range of times a closure can be used.
2
1
There's hints of this stuff in what Granule is doing, and I'm hoping more progress is going to be made on this in the future. It seems like stuff like this could be rather useful for systems programming, imo.
1