On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Brian Anderson <[email protected]>wrote:
> As to the issue of arbitrary global memory modifying code, only unsafe > Rust code will do that, and it's understood that when running unsafe code > there is no safety net. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Brian. Even within a task, if I have a ~str that I change and then need to rollback that change... Unless there is a way to clone an entire task that I'm not aware of... > > All my thoughts on this subject are above. Tasks don't address all the > problems you want to solve, but I suggest it may be ok not to solve them. > It's nice to feel like there is support for a less ambitious plan. Nonetheless, I do want aim high at first. I'd really like a robust and bulletproof repl as much as possible. I suspect it will entice new users as well. And I think that the choices that flow from bulletproof are interesting. For instance, how viable is it to have a (bare-bones if need be) single-threaded rust runtime... which is also a question of independent interest for those considering Rust for embedded systems development. In any case, it might indeed turn out that worse is better or good enough. But I want to try for better first. Jason
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
