slavytuch's avatar

slavytuch0@gmail.com

slavytuch

Member since

30

Total Reputation

1

Total Arguments

4

Total Votes for Arguments

Arguments and votes

1

When it gets deferred or closure comes from other place - it may play the evil trick, that will make you use several new copies of same variable just to exclude context from place, where the variable could be updated.

Share:
Read the RFC: Short Closures 2.0 slavytuch avatar
slavytuch
voted no
24

The 'use' statement clarifies the scope for me. So a proposal like this could have the side effect of mixing scope which would lead to a confusing code.

Share:
Read the RFC: Short Closures 2.0 nabeel avatar
nabeel
voted no
12

I'm not sure if allowing default implementations in interfaces is the way to go here.

To me it looks like a workaround / hack for non existing multi inheritance.

Why not either make multi inheritance possible instead or allow traits with interfaces as suggested by Victor?

Share:
Read the RFC: Interface Default Methods alexander avatar
alexander
voted no
57
  1. Separation of what (interface) and how (class/trait)
  2. More balanced vote chart, now it's too green
Share:
Read the RFC: Interface Default Methods jacek avatar
jacek
voted no
RSS Feed Contribute Watch on YouTube Our License
© 2024 RFC Vote. This project is open source. Contribute and collaborate with us!