replace `if true {...}` with `{...}`

[vks]

Currently the examples use

if true {
...
}

to create a new scope. Maybe it is better to use

{
...
}

instead?

[japaric]

The reason I use the former is that some people got confused by the second form, they thought they could just remove the braces without changing the behavior of the program.

I think this confusion can be addressed by mentioning that all variables are local to the block scope as early as possible (the variables chapter seems adequate) [1]

The former form does have the advantage that it can be referred as the "if block", whereas the latter would be referred as just "the block", which could be confusing.

If we address [1], then I think we can proceed to change some if true { ... } to { ... } on a case by case basis.

cc @FreeFull

[vks]

The reason I use the former is that some people got confused by the second form, they thought they could just remove the braces without changing the behavior of the program.

I think this confusion can be addressed by mentioning that all variables are local to the block scope as early as possible (the variables chapter seems adequate) [1]

I think we should do that. IMHO the examples should teach a good Rust style and not compromise here. Rust has loop instead of while true, in that spirit I think if true should be avoided.

If there is still room for confusion, we could add a comment each time the braces are used (like 'open a new scope'). But I think it is important to understand the concept of scope, more so in Rust than in other languages because of borrowing.

[FreeFull]

I think addressing [1], and adding comments to prevent any confusion, is the best course of action. It can be noted that blocks as statements in C, C++ and Rust behave the same, introducing a new scope.

[japaric]

I think we all agree that:

• we should introduce scope locality of variables ASAP
• replace the if true { ... } for { ... }

OK, let's do this

[japaric]

#96 should have closed this