Yup, that's the plan. :) The idea is to have the language be stable at 1.0, but
to have the standard library in varying states of stability, with some modules
marked stable and others marked unstable. This approach has worked well for
node.js and we're more comfortable doing that as opposed to freezing the
standard library in one fell swoop.
Patrick
"György Andrasek" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 12/30/2013 06:25 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
>> The basic way pointers and traits work are not changing at this
>point,
>> unless some unsoundness is found. Remaining effort beyond what's on
>the
>> roadmap is going to focus on documentation.
>>
>> If you believe the language will fail unless we radically change
>either
>> one, then all I can say is that I disagree, and I'm sorry Rust is not
>> the language for you.
>>
>> Patrick
>
>Would it make sense to finalize Rust-the-language 1.0 and keep libstd
>in
>flux? It would give a head start to IDE writers and help shake the
>feeling of "oh god, I have to fix all my code again".
>_______________________________________________
>Rust-dev mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
