On 26/01/14 15:00, Vladimir Lushnikov wrote:
Here are a couple of observations/comments from a rust lurker:
** And anyway we cannot implement STM in the rust core library I think
Worth noting that Haswell supports STM in hardware:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_Synchronization_
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 07:07:32PM +0100, Gábor Lehel wrote:
> If you wanted to pass an unboxed closure without indirection though, like
> `fn foo>(x: T)`, then you would have to explicitly dereference
> the closure, i.e. `foo(*|u| r)` (which might be OK).
Why would you want to do that? There is n
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Brian Anderson wrote:
> People interested in Rust are often looking for ways to have a greater
> impact on its development, and while the issue tracker lists lots of stuff
> that one *could* work on, it's not always clear what one *should* work on.
> There is consi
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Niko Matsakis wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 07:07:32PM +0100, Gábor Lehel wrote:
> > If you wanted to pass an unboxed closure without indirection though, like
> > `fn foo>(x: T)`, then you would have to explicitly
> dereference
> > the closure, i.e. `foo(*|u|
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Matthieu Monrocq <
matthieu.monr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Brian Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>> Consensus is that the `do` keyword is no longer pulling its weight.
>> Remove all uses of it, then remove support from the compiler. This is
Good afternoon Rusties,
I wanted to remind everyone of the next Rust Bay Area meetup tomorrow at
the San Francisco Mozilla office. We still have plenty of spots left
available if you want to join us. On the agenda is:
* Brian will talk about Rust 0.9 and the roadmap to 1.0
* Niko will talk about
Hey Rustlers.
I've just instructed our friendly bot, bors, to start rejecting pull
requests that don't pass the test suite on Android. This has been a long
time coming, but from now on our Android support should be much more
consistent. This will make it incrementally harder to land certain ty
Hey again, Rusticians.
So I think most of us know that rustpkg isn't quite working the way
people expect, and the general consensus seems to be that its flaws
extend pretty deep, to the point where it may just not be exposing the
right model. I'd like to deprecate it immediately to end the
fr
Vote of strong support here. I removed the rustpkg chapter from Rust
for Rubyists for a reason. :/
___
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
I'm somewhat new to the Rust dev scene. Would anybody care to summarize
roughly what the deficiencies are in the existing system in the interest of
forward progress? It may help seed the discussion for the next effort as
well.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
> Vote of stron
On Jan 27, 2014 8:53 PM, "Jeremy Ong" wrote:
>
> I'm somewhat new to the Rust dev scene. Would anybody care to summarize
roughly what the deficiencies are in the existing system in the interest of
forward progress? It may help seed the discussion for the next effort as
well.
I'd like to second th
I hadn't planned on announcing it just yet, because it's currently
going through some battle testing etc, but I have cargo-lite[0], which
is intended to be a tiny little thing that Just Works for simple
cases.
[0]: https://github.com/cmr/cargo-lite
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Val Markovic w
12 matches
Mail list logo
