Hi there,
At the moment rust only supports Linux/FreeBSD/Windows/MacOSX. I'd
like to be
able to compile it on DragonFlyBSD [1].
I am trying to get the FreeBSD stage0/bin/rustc to run on DragonFly, yet
with no success.
Is it possible to generate a static rustc binary somehow? Or what in
I agree with Simon that doubling the API is inelegant. I think the solution
is adding sugar to make working with Option/Result easier -
(semi-)independent of the foo/foo_opt issue, I find working with Option
pretty painful.
I prefer the Haskell do sugar to refutable patterns in let. Similar in
I am VERY interested in the support of this platform, DragonFlyBSD. Which
is a great Systems OS in and of itself.
Thanks for your future efforts on it, Michael !
(BTW, in particular, I am interested in access to the HAMMER File System on
DragonFlyBSD to begin my experiments)
On Tue, Jan 7,
I can see how '?.' would work when foo() returns a struct, but what about
non-struct types, e.g. Optioni32 ? Also, you'd still have to deal with
'None' at the end of the chain. I think in most cases I'd rather have it
fail.
I also don't really like refutable let-patterns proposal, because
I think that you eventually have to deal with the Some or None-ness of an
expression is an advantage of the ? operator, it means you can't ignore
failure, but you don't have to deal with it at every step of a compound
expression. Using an operator for unwrap has the same disadvantage as plain
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Nick Cameron li...@ncameron.org wrote:
I think that you eventually have to deal with the Some or None-ness of an
expression is an advantage of the ? operator, it means you can't ignore
failure, but you don't have to deal with it at every step of a compound
On 8/01/2014, at 3:39 pm, Nick Cameron li...@ncameron.org wrote:
I think that you eventually have to deal with the Some or None-ness of an
expression is an advantage of the ? operator, it means you can't ignore
failure, but you don't have to deal with it at every step of a compound
I realized something. A good near term working solution could make use of
the pending procedural macros to make a nicer syntax for the and_then
procedures!
(or could the current syntax rules style macros work with that even?). Not
sure If i'll have the time to do that experiment,
but throwing
Sorry, I didn't mean ignore errors as in unsafe, I meant that it allows the
programmer to write code without having the error case be explicit. This is
the (well, one of the) problems with null pointers in C and Java.
You make a good point about errors from the API, and I guess this
highlights a
