hmm, very on the fence about using polymorphism vs making it explicit that Rc::clone(&foo) copies a pointer vs foo.clone(), which, uh, might do anything, idk?
-
I know it from pre-arc objective C which is the only other time I've ever worked with explicit reference counting
-
-
it is! it's just not as used in rust because moves handle adoption (so retain is the only thing that happens explicitly) and only time you need to worry about "adopt" is when you're interfacing with raw pointers (rare)https://github.com/retep998/wio-rs/issues/20 …
-
My main point was just that `clone` implies it's doing a lot more than it really is (even if incrementing the ref count is technically correct impl of clone for Rc). The fact that we push everyone to use `Rc::clone` for explicitness says that `clone` was the wrong term to me
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
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.