Re: [Vala] Ownership syntax changes

["Sam Liddicott" <sam liddicott com>]

Why not [owned] ?

Sam

-----Original Message-----
From: JürgBilleter <j bitron ch>
Sent: 20 December 2008 07:32
To: jamie mccrack gmail com
Cc: vala-list <vala-list gnome org>
Subject: Re: [Vala] Ownership syntax changes

On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 20:49 -0500, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-12-20 at 02:19 +0100, Hans Vercammen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 12:10 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> > >       * `(owned)' cast replaces `#' reference transfer expression
> > >
> > > Even less used, equally unintuitive. Example of new syntax:
> > >
> > > string foo = (owned) bar;
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion on this since I don't really need it, but
> > using a cast expression feels a bit wrong. Not sure if we want to keep
> > the option open of having operator overloading, but what about something
> > like:
> >
> > string foo <= bar;
> > or
> > string foo << bar;
>
>  <= and << are already operators in use and would be confusing but i do
> agree the use of cast syntax here is odd
>
> I would suggest something thats not a cast but still clear:
>
> string foo owns bar;

It needs to be an expression, as it can also be used as a method
argument, not just in assignments.

> or
>
> string foo = owned bar;

We could of course remove the parentheses, however, I don't really see
how this should be more intuitive than my proposal. (owned) probably
stands out a bit more in the code, which is a good thing for rarely used
syntax.

I proposed a cast syntax as a short for a full cast including the type
and modifier:

    string foo = (owned string) bar;

Just like with a cast, we still refer to the same object, we just also
modify ownership behavior.

Jürg

_______________________________________________
Vala-list mailing list
Vala-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list