On 6/2/12 6:06 PM, Niko Matsakis wrote:
On 6/1/12 2:59 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
The other problem is that the function may not have enough information
to determine what is locally unrecoverable. I believe that `remove` is
a good example of issues whose recoverability depend on the
On 02/06/12 16:17, Patrick Walton wrote:
I agree completely and have thought the exact same thing in the past.
I will bring this up at the next meeting.
On 04/06/12 01:52, Brian Anderson wrote:
Agreed on all points. The current syntax was just an expedient to get
rustdoc working, and the
On 12-06-01 5:47 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
My main concern is that we would end up with a Rust used in-the-wild
without either guidelines, library or mechanism for handling non-fatal
issues.
Yeah. We'll have to pin down a technique and use it widely through the
stdlib when we're
- Original Message -
From: Zack Corr zackcor...@gmail.com
To: rust-dev@mozilla.org
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 4:31:11 AM
Subject: [rust-dev] Cargo proposal - thinking about better ways to represent
sources
Hello everyone,
I have committed myself to add dependency support
Why is this extremely bad for usability? Would it be bad if we
automatically synced the sources?
Well, I just consider having to type `cargo sync` whenever a package
changes bad usability. We could have a compromise to make it automatic (see
the bottom of the message).
url/crates.json -
