There's already an experimental notice. On 31 May 2013 17:11, "Kevin Cantu" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Relatively crude tools like `run rust` or > `rustx<https://github.com/killerswan/rustx/blob/master/build/rustx>` > go a long way, but they're not a substitute for properly learning the > module system or for having a good REPL handy. It seems silly to bin an > experimental feature out of the fear that the number one request of new > users exploring the language will, itself, scare them away. > > Maybe for now just stick in a warning when it starts up: "RUSTI IS STILL > AN EXPERIMENTAL BETA FEATURE! If you have a problem, try our more reliable > `rust run`, instead. And volunteers are needed! :D" > > Kevin > > > > -- > Kevin Cantu > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Thad Guidry <[email protected]> wrote: > >> RUST RUN. FTW. :-) >> >> >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, John Clements <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> On May 29, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> > >>> > I agree that a 'rust run' command, or indeed exploiting our support for >>> > shebang comments[1], should be sufficient for most users. But I'm not >>> > convinced the repl serves no purpose, yet (though it's true, I don't >>> use >>> > seem to ever use it; I also write surprisingly little rust code these >>> > days). People ask for it, and it doesn't really bend the language any >>> to >>> > support it. It _is_ a code-maintenance cost, of course, so I'm also >>> > curious what others think in terms of the balance of costs/benefits. >>> >>> My vote: dump it. This might sound surprising from a Schemer, but >>> probably not from a Racketeer. Making the top-level work correctly soaked >>> up far too much time in the Racket environment. There's nothing more >>> infuriating than getting something to work in the REPL and then discovering >>> that it doesn't work in compiled code… unless it's struggling for weeks to >>> get something to work in the REPL, only to discover that it works just fine >>> in compiled code. >>> >>> I think that the principal use case for a REPL is interactive >>> exploration of what rust programs mean, and I think that the best way to >>> support this is to have a nice clean "rust run", and possibly some sugar >>> that makes evaluating and printing the result of a single expression more >>> convenient. >>> >>> My opinion only. >>> >>> John >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rust-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -Thad >> http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rust-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
