There is a tag on GitHub specifically for easy issues:
https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues?labels=E-easymilestone=13state=open
___
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Ranges are a more
modern implementation of iterators and are much more easily composed.
Ranges are also trivially memory safe, and I doubt that split
current/end iterators can provide memory safety with only references.
Hello folks,
I'm a French student finishing his study this year and a teacher gave us
a project to finish by the end of the year which is to modify (or add) a
small feature to an existing interpreter (or compiler, language,...)
such as a primitive or a control structure.
I'm pretty new to
On 11/30/2013 07:41 PM, Pierre Talbot wrote:
Do you have suggestions that could fit well for this kind of project?
Make the following code compile:
```
fn foo() {
bar()
fn bar() {}
}
```
i.e. allow nested function declarations after a semicolonless return
expression.
Is is possible to get rid of this returnless return?
I mean, it is really hard yo read, why not enforcing the use of return
statement, always?
Le 30 nov. 2013 19:59, György Andrasek jur...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 11/30/2013 07:41 PM, Pierre Talbot wrote:
Do you have suggestions that could fit
Is is possible to get rid of this returnless return?
I mean, it is really hard yo read, why not enforcing the use of return
statement, always?
This isn't the point of this thread, and also I don't think anybody is
willing to revisit this issue. Consider that ship as having sailed beyond
the
Currently our `for` loops are implemented strangely. In essence, right now
a `for` loop is just syntax sugar that gets expanded during the parsing
stage. This was easy to implement, but it means that our error messages
around `for` loops are strange and it limits our ability to do more
intelligent
Sorry for this offtopic subject..
Le 30 nov. 2013 20:20, Benjamin Striegel ben.strie...@gmail.com a écrit
:
Is is possible to get rid of this returnless return?
I mean, it is really hard yo read, why not enforcing the use of return
statement, always?
This isn't the point of this thread,
It's okay, it's our own fault for not having yet written a document
entitled Things That Absolutely Will Not Change And That We Are Tired Of
Discussing. :P
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Gaetan gae...@xeberon.net wrote:
Sorry for this offtopic subject..
Le 30 nov. 2013 20:20, Benjamin
