Question: assuming something like optional/kwargs is eventually introduced (and I'm assuming at this time everyone understands their usefulness but has more important things going on in the language) what would happen with the std, considering those features would open up a plethora of new function signatures that might deprecate older methods?
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Andrés Osinski http://www.andresosinski.com.ar/
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
