gpopides@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 1 year agoBrought to you by the ocaml ganglemmy.worldimagemessage-square13fedilinkarrow-up1179arrow-down114
arrow-up1165arrow-down1imageBrought to you by the ocaml ganglemmy.worldgpopides@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 1 year agomessage-square13fedilink
minus-squareKnusper@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up18·1 year agoIn other words, in OCaml, you don’t have to write type annotations into the function parameter list. It will infer even those. It’s useful for small ad-hoc functions, but personally, I’m glad that Rust is more explicit here.
minus-squarevoxel@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up6·edit-21 year agoyeah structs, consts ets should always be explicit, prevents a lot oh headache also, for adhoc stuff rust has closures which can be fully inferred (but you need to convert them to explicit function pointers for storage in structs/consts)
In other words, in OCaml, you don’t have to write type annotations into the function parameter list. It will infer even those.
It’s useful for small ad-hoc functions, but personally, I’m glad that Rust is more explicit here.
yeah structs, consts ets should always be explicit, prevents a lot oh headache
also, for adhoc stuff rust has closures which can be fully inferred (but you need to convert them to explicit function pointers for storage in structs/consts)