Please take a look at Haskell's Persistent library. Its higher level but
has an awesome DSL for defining schemas and provides radical type safety.
It would be awesome to have that in Rust too.
Max
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Jao-ke Chin-Lee wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Corey
Oops, didn't reply to all, but +1 for me too.
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Brian Anderson wrote:
> On 05/24/2013 10:59 AM, Erick Tryzelaar wrote:
>
>> Good morning everyone,
>>
>> I know there are a couple of us in the San Francisco Bay Area that are
>> working on Rust. Would any of you have
11:38 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
> On 30/04/2013 10:08 AM, Max Cantor wrote:
>
> I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but pure functions would be a
>> massive win for Rust, especially if the eventual goal is high
>> performance, highly parallelizable (brow
ot of value beyond typestate.
So, my questions are, did Predicate Functions themselves introduce a high
degree of complexity? If not, would the community be open to bringing them
back? If so, I'd be willing to put some work into doing that.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Max Cantor wr
If so, I had no idea. However, if it doesn't come in before 1.0 then I
fear that ecosystem will develop around not having one and then by 2.0 it
will be "too late"
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Gábor Lehel wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Tim Chevalier wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 29,
unexpected capability that emerged from having pure functions.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Max Cantor wrote:
> > I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but pure functions would be a
> > massive win for Rust, e
I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but pure functions would be a
massive win for Rust, especially if the eventual goal is high performance,
highly parallelizable (browser rendering engines..) development.
The typestate system did seme very complex but isn't there a middle ground
via annotat
Haskell doesn't expose / to integers. only mod and rem. / is only exposed
to rationals and reals.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Diggory Hardy wrote:
> > My opinion (that nobody will follow, but I still give it) is that
> integers
> > should not have the "/" operator at all. This was one of
Unless `std` has been settled on, I think that `base` for `std` and
`platform` for `core` are the most informative and most likely to not
require explanation for new users. The reason I don't like `std` is that,
AFAIK, the usual explanations for packages like `core` in other languages
is: "a stand
I'm pretty new to Rust (lurking on the list for a while) but have been in
the Haskell community for a while. While cabal in general is nothing that
should be emulated, perhaps the Haskell hierarchy would be informative.
In Haskell, there are somewhat unofficial hierarchies, but here they are:
pr
10 matches
Mail list logo
