Pietro Gorilskij
Pietro Gorilskij
The problem with representing `bool` as an enum is that it's either backwards-compatible (`bool`, `true`, `false`) or it conforms to the CamelCase naming convention for enums defined in RFC [#430](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/430)...
@KrishnaSannasi I would tend to agree, both for compatibility and because `bool` is a basic enough type to warrant a lower case name. It's not bad, just unpleasantly inconsistent, especially...
Perhaps you're right. I still think that in an ideal world it would be `Bool`, `True` and `False`, maybe that's something to consider for a future edition. What about `if`/`else`...
I understand that `if` and `if`/`else` can be treated as pure sugar but they are nonetheless (together with `while` which, as far as I can see, can't be desugared without...
> But I also don’t see much benefits, so it may not be worth the bother. I don't see any benefits other than "it looks cleaner" which I'd argue it...
I was talking about the issue purely from a user's point of view, I have no knowledge of compiler internals (or experience in this area for that matter). Just out...
Oh, sorry, I misread it as "it would make it simpler to implement special casing." Thanks for clarifying.
Hex support #200