On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/26/11 12:05 PM, Tim Chevalier wrote: >> >> IMHO, a non-exhaustive alt is always an error. If some cases are >> "impossible", a static requirement for the programmer to declare their >> intentions explicitly by inserting a fail (hopefully with an >> informative error message) can save a lot of time later. > > I prefer warnings, in the interests of quick-and-dirty hacks.
Or a compiler flag that toggles the behavior? In all of my ocaml projects, I always have the "treat non-exhaustive pattern checks as errors" and I'd want to do the same for rust, but I can understand not requiring it for quick-and-dirty hacks. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
