RUST RUN. FTW. :-)
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, John Clements <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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 > -- -Thad http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
