On May 29, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote: ... > > I agree that a 'rust run' command, or indeed exploiting our support for > shebang comments[1], should be sufficient for most users. But I'm not > convinced the repl serves no purpose, yet (though it's true, I don't use > seem to ever use it; I also write surprisingly little rust code these > days). People ask for it, and it doesn't really bend the language any to > support it. It _is_ a code-maintenance cost, of course, so I'm also > curious what others think in terms of the balance of costs/benefits.
My vote: dump it. This might sound surprising from a Schemer, but probably not from a Racketeer. Making the top-level work correctly soaked up far too much time in the Racket environment. There's nothing more infuriating than getting something to work in the REPL and then discovering that it doesn't work in compiled code… unless it's struggling for weeks to get something to work in the REPL, only to discover that it works just fine in compiled code. I think that the principal use case for a REPL is interactive exploration of what rust programs mean, and I think that the best way to support this is to have a nice clean "rust run", and possibly some sugar that makes evaluating and printing the result of a single expression more convenient. My opinion only. John _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
