requiring positional args to use the assignment syntax
Not sure, maybe my wording isn't clear enough.
What I intended to say is that arguments can be named, not that they have to.
In any case, the order of arguments must match the order of parameters, named or not.
But you’re also missing one use of the impl keyword: fn func() -> impl Trait.
That removal could actually happen, so I didn't list it. (Rust started requiring dyn and disallowed naked trait returns with edition 2018. So dropping the impl in that position might not be completely impossible like the other uses of impl.)
Are you suggesting using keywords/methods [for array and slice syntax] instead?
Yes, just methods.
I can understand someone preferring the PartialEq/PartialOrd behavior
You can have both – that's what's being made possible by them not being in a hierarchy.
I think if-let makes sense, but don’t expand it.
It's a bit late for that, isn't it? ;-)
Why? What value does -> () provide? Why not elide that?
What value is provided by keeping it? Why a syntactic special-case for exactly that type and not any other random type?
languages w/o them feel awkward since you’re generally limited to one statement per line
I went the "only let introduces bindings" route, and I'm pretty happy so far:
if (left.next(), right.next())
... is (Some(let l), Some(let r)) { /* use l and r */ }
... is (Some(let l), None ) { /* use l */ }
... is (None, Some(let r)) { /* use r */ }
... is (None, None ) { /* use nothing */ }
}
Some of the earlier ones remind me of C#'s records. Were they inspired from them?
No, that stuff is much much older.
Named parameters are problematic because of parameter names becoming significant to the API. See Python’s * and / in parameter lists (like def foo(a, *, b) for example).
I think the name problem is overblown, you can always have an annotation to facilitate name changes.
I would be deeply uncomfortable to work in an environment where one couldn't ask the author of a change for insights or rationale, because the author let some machine write it and therefore lacks any deeper understanding.
I think it's due to multiple reasons, and the threshold of rejecting the course of GitHub/Microsoft/the USA seems to have reached a level where GitHub stopped being the "default" place to be for a number of projects already.
And if you are at a point were you need a Codeberg account anyway already, why not move your own projects there (or use it for new ones)?
Not to mention, the Forgejo project is at a stage were it feels like your bug report/feature request/contribution has an actual impact.
Good decision. Sounds like a decent human being!