> Non-goal: comprehensiveness. While naturally we would like rusti to be as > close to rustc semantics as possible, strict conformance is not a goal for > this project. That is, we don't feel it important that rusti has to cover > absolutely every data type, nor every corner of the runtime of this quickly > evolving language.
I agree that this is a good thing for rusti. > In other words, it may be very arduous (given current > encodable/decodable constraints) to implement in a rusti repl that supports > task and fail! semantics. I think that having `fail!` work is an important aspect of rusti. Otherwise if you ever trip an assertion it will abort the entire session (or indexing things out of bounds, etc.). The main problem here is instructing LLVM to correctly emit exception handling code, which I *believe* is actually already done. One of the recent upgrades of LLVM fixed this bug, so it shouldn't be too bad to get running again. Basically, I'm OK with leaving out tasks/spawned tasks from rusti, but I think that it should be important to be able to fail! and have the repl state intact afterwards. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
