Our great sponsors
-
To my knowledge, this closure syntax was a direct Ruby influence mainly because this syntax was also supposed to work like Ruby blocks: `array.each |e| { ... }`. Originally owned and shared closures had a different syntax (`fn~() { ... }` or `[email protected]() { ... }`)---this was back when Rust had a built-in shared reference, roughly equivalent to `std::sync::Arc` in the modern Rust---and it was pointed out that they should be harmonized at some point [1]. It was that time when people realized that then-loop-only syntax can be generalized into any closures, and this semi-decision got stuck even after the "internal" iterator that accepts a closure has long gone.
-
-
SonarLint
Clean code begins in your IDE with SonarLint. Up your coding game and discover issues early. SonarLint is a free plugin that helps you find & fix bugs and security issues from the moment you start writing code. Install from your favorite IDE marketplace today.
-
-
That was proposed and rejected for Rust recently:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3267
I was against because I felt that there should always be parens/brackets/braces (macros can use any of them) for better scannability when you're invoking an unclear amount of extra stuff behind the scenes.
(An appeal to the "make costs explicit" side of Rust's philosophy that also requires explicit .clone() rather than copy constructors.)
