As someone who hasn’t been following this, playing the connotation game (using “automatic” instead [partially] “implicit”) is rubbing me the wrong way.
Otherwise, the keyword use seems too generic to be used for this. But I’m sure this has been bikeshedded already, and if it hasn’t, it will be.
Otherwise, the keyword use seems too generic to be used for this
I also feel that way, and I don’t even understand how the word “use” is related to the underlying semantics at all.
My only guess is that use is already a keyword, and anything that’s not a keyword currently would require a new language edition. I would also prefer something like autoclone async {}, or maybe even with_cloned <explicit list of objects to clone, or _ for automatic detection> async {} . Not sure if it 100% makes sense but would be more readable IMO.
P.S. it seems they will explore an alternative solution that doesn’t involve a new keyword at all, and just automagically clones when it’s “cheap” to do. Sounds more user-friendly to me TBH.
As someone who hasn’t been following this, playing the connotation game (using “automatic” instead [partially] “implicit”) is rubbing me the wrong way.
Otherwise, the keyword
useseems too generic to be used for this. But I’m sure this has been bikeshedded already, and if it hasn’t, it will be.I also feel that way, and I don’t even understand how the word “use” is related to the underlying semantics at all.
My only guess is that
useis already a keyword, and anything that’s not a keyword currently would require a new language edition. I would also prefer something likeautoclone async {}, or maybe evenwith_cloned <explicit list of objects to clone, or _ for automatic detection> async {}. Not sure if it 100% makes sense but would be more readable IMO.P.S. it seems they will explore an alternative solution that doesn’t involve a new keyword at all, and just automagically clones when it’s “cheap” to do. Sounds more user-friendly to me TBH.