Looks like libuv is a showstopper currently for me on Windows Cygwin
building.
Why is it used ? Should it be ? Will it be in the future ?
Can someone throw up a quick paragraph or 2 about this on the wiki and let
me know ?
Thanks in advance !
--
-Thad
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_gui
So this has been bouncing around in the back of my head, and now actual
thoughts have congealed there. Essentially, while I think this is a very
good defense of why Rust doesn't have purity, it's not so convincing to me
as a defense of why it *shouldn't* have purity. (I don't know if it was
intende
On 13-05-03 01:21 PM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
On 13-05-03 01:12 PM, Brian Anderson wrote:
I agree with reconsidering the inconsistent, underspecified printf
syntax, but don't have any specific thoughts on this at this time.
Note that I made a page collecting links to existing format libraries a
On 13-05-03 01:12 PM, Brian Anderson wrote:
I agree with reconsidering the inconsistent, underspecified printf
syntax, but don't have any specific thoughts on this at this time.
Note that I made a page collecting links to existing format libraries a
little while back:
https://github.com/moz
On 05/03/2013 09:04 AM, Niko Matsakis wrote:
The problem I guess is that there is no AST node to hang those tags
off of, unless I introduce artifical mods. I still want to try this.
It seems to make sense that the best way to structure the docs is also
the best way to structure the code.
I agr
On 05/03/2013 08:28 AM, Huon Wilson wrote:
Hi all,
Aatch, Kimundi and I (and maybe some others... sorry if I've forgotten
you) came up with a bit of proposal on IRC for handling fmt!. It's
possibly been considered already, but whatever, we'd like some
comments on it.
I'm glad you are thinking
Here are a couple other ideas. The downsides to these are introducing
new keywords/symbols, and that they're a little verbose.
ident is pat
ident <- pat
-Walter
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Brian Anderson wrote:
> On 05/02/2013 11:33 PM, Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't really have any
On 05/02/2013 11:33 PM, Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
I don't really have any preference at all; I just need to know what to
implement. Opinions?
I propose "ident for pat" for current "ident @ pat" syntax.
___
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 08:25:21PM -0700, Erick Tryzelaar wrote:
> I'm not sure what I think about this, but we could do away with the `as`
> cast operator and replace it with `.to_f32()`. I was already planning on
> adding a ToInt/FromInt for casting to and from enums, so we'll probably
> grow `.t
It is legitimately useful to have bindings at the top-level of
patterns in match statements. Here are two examples. I'm not so sure
about `let` bindings, but I guess that reason (1) could still apply.
(1) Today, it's sometimes nice when matching against an rvalue,
where you want to both take t
The problem I guess is that there is no AST node to hang those tags
off of, unless I introduce artifical mods. I still want to try this.
It seems to make sense that the best way to structure the docs is also
the best way to structure the code.
Niko
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 07:49:29PM -0600, Jac
Hi all,
Aatch, Kimundi and I (and maybe some others... sorry if I've forgotten
you) came up with a bit of proposal on IRC for handling fmt!. It's
possibly been considered already, but whatever, we'd like some
comments on it.
There would one trait for each format specifier (probably excluding
`?
There might be something obviously wrong with this, but how about:
match foo {
let foo = Foo { field: x } => ...
}
Gareth
On 3 May 2013 02:12, Patrick Walton wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> There's consensus that `@` (imported from Haskell) is a bad binding
> operator for patterns,
Patrick (cc'ing rust-dev)-
Between the two options Patrick presented, my vote is for bifurcating
the grammar into irrefutable and refutable variants. I like having one
operator to denote binding (even if it also sometimes means mutation).
However, my (potentially-wrong) intuition is that the
I like using ":" for casts and "as" for binding (perhaps reversed, like
Python's with statement) the most, and I believe it has been proposed
before https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2012-May/001825.html
On 3 May 2013 04:25, Erick Tryzelaar wrote:
> I'm not sure what I think about t
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Patrick Walton wrote:
>
> The alternative is `as`, like OCaml. However, this conflicts with `as` in
> the expression grammar. A subset of the expression grammar is part of the
> pattern grammar in order to permit matching against constants. Removing
> `as` expressi
Maybe we can consider `:=`, if `=` alone is ambiguous.
- Message d'origine -
De : Patrick Walton
Envoyés : 03.05.13 03:12
À : rust-dev@mozilla.org
Objet : [rust-dev] RFC: Pattern matching binding operator
Hi everyone,
There's consensus that `@` (imported from Haskell) is a bad binding
17 matches
Mail list logo
