Mut syntax for record fields

[jamorton]

Just a random comment, not sure if anything can be done about this.

I think the mutability syntax for records is a bit unreadable.

type cpu_state = {
    regs: [mut u16],
    mut pc: u16,
    mut sp: u16,
    mut o: u16,
    mem: [mut u16],
    mut cycles: uint,
    mut stop: bool
};

fn new_cpu_state() -> cpu_state {
    {
        regs: vec::to_mut(vec::from_elem(8u, 0u16)),
        mut pc: 0u16,
        mut sp: 0u16,
        mut o: 0u16,
        mem: vec::to_mut(vec::from_elem(0x10000u, 0u16)),
        mut cycles: 0u,
        mut stop: false
    }
}

Because the mut comes before the field name, it's quite hard to figure out what the actual fields are called. IMO, name should be on the left and the information associated with it on the right, that seems like a universal thing for structs, dictionaries, etc.

[nikomatsakis]

I guess we could do {x mut: T}? But I think we won't, so I'm just gonna' close. (Feel free to re-open)

[jdm]

Personally, x: mut T feels far more readable to me.

[nikomatsakis]

@jdm it's true that this looks nice, though I think it confuses mut being a part of the type... (which I kind of like, but I haven't figured out a way to make it work)

Maybe I was too hasty to close, but I'd rather see an e-mail to the list to hash out some kind of proposal before opening a bug. That is, I think issues ought to have specific suggestions, not just an indication of what you dislike.

[nikomatsakis]

(The you there is meant generically, not to address the "OP" nor @jdm)

[jamorton]

That's fair. I might make an email about it then.

Thanks!