On 22/10/2012 6:52 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I can make the translator generate integer literals as the patterns
for the arms of the match. However, I think the generated Rust code
would be nicer for humans to read with char literals in the patterns.
Write it like: match c as char { ... }
After reading the Borrowed Pointer Tutorial, I started wondering: why
should the programmer have to specify whether to pass function parameters
by-copy of by-reference? Couldn't Rust just drop the '' sigil and let
the compiler decide on parameter passing mode?
If functions parameters are
I am very new to Rust, but I have a little project where I'd like to
compile something else into Rust code. I have seen the macro syntax which
doesn't operate on pure strings (from what I see) and I have seen projects
like rust-repl that parse and inject at runtime. Which approach should I
take if
I believe that the addition of warnings for useless comparisons,
similar to gcc's
-Wtype-limits would be a nice feature to have for a safety-minded language
such as Rust.
Consider this program:
fn main() {
let x = ~[1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
let mut i = x.len() - 1;
while i = 0 {
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Patrick Walton pwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 10/22/12 9:08 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
I suggest allowing char literals when matching on an integer (or when
otherwise comparing to an integer or when assigning to an integer
variable) as long as the Unicode code
This confused me, a rust neophyte, so I wanted to ask for
clarification, inline below:
I apologize this is a little off topic; is there a better venue for
language-as-it-is learning versus design / implementation discussions?
Has rust passed the threshold where those two topic groups split off
On 10/22/12 1:59 PM, Nathan wrote:
Is the indexing operation a primitive language implementation, or does
it translate into a trait method or some other user-definable
behavior? In the latter case, what is it's interface? (Nothing in
the vec docs for 0.4 obviously implement v[i].)
It
On 12-10-22 02:12 AM, Benjamin Striegel wrote:
Could the RAII-styled second option be rewritten as follows?
do |cond, handler| {
cond.add(handler);
do_some_stuff();
that_might_raise();
out_of_kittens();
}(OutOfKittens) |t| {
UseAardvarksInstead
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Matthieu Monrocq
matthieu.monr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Gareth Smith garethdanielsm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Option 3 looks prettiest to me, but I like that in Option 1 the
error-raising code comes before the error-handling code (based
