On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Daniel Micay <danielmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Gábor Lehel <glaebho...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Speaking of which: I completely agree with Patrick that there's no point > to > > blocking Rust 1.0 on backwards compatible features. The reason I'm > > nonetheless wary of a drive to finalize the language too soon is that > there > > are still some really huge things outstanding, such as DST/SST, that we > > still need to figure out, let alone implement, and ideally after > > implementation there should also be a cooling-off period to see if > > everything's working well, and that there aren't further issues that end > up > > getting raised as a consequence (or if there are, how to address them), > and > > so forth. > > Adding a backwards compatible feature can completely change the idioms > of the language. Of course, if we're not worried about stabilizing the > standard library then it doesn't matter. > Right. It was my understanding that we aren't.
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
