Hello,
I'm following rust for quite a while, but the discussions are more and more
distributed between different places.
The mailing list was probably first, then with more user attention reddit
and StackOverflow, and now the discourse forum.
I understand that StackOverflow and Reddit are more
Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 7/21/14 2:22 PM, Tobias Müller wrote:
We discussed this with Bartosz literally for weeks (him being a fan of
auto_ptr for too long, later completely converted against it and I take
credit for that :o)). With auto_ptr this was possible
Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 7/21/14 8:49 AM, Tobias Müller wrote:
As a rust newbie, that aspect aways makes me a bit nervous. Two quite
different operations with the same syntax and and simply changing a detail
in the struct can be enough to switch between the two
Ziad Hatahet hata...@gmail.com wrote:
Kind of off-topic, but there is a heated discussion on the D language
forums about why having non-virtual base class methods by default is a bad
idea:
a
Eric Reed ecr...@cs.washington.edu wrote:
In general, monads require higher-kinded types because for a type to be a
monad it must take a type variable. That is, OptionT and ListT could
be monads, but int and TcpSocket can't be monads. So imagine we wanted to
define a trait Monad in Rust.
Just
Lee Braiden leebr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/01/14 01:50, Palmer Cox wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Tobias Müller
trop...@bluewin.ch
mailto:trop...@bluewin.ch wrote:
Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com
mailto:danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you know what undefined
comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Tobias Müller trop...@bluewin.ch wrote:
intl1,u1 + intl2,u2 = intl1+l2,u1+u2
...
If the result does not fit into an int the compiler throws an error.
To resolve an error, you can:
- annotate the operands with appropriate bounds
Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Tobias Müller trop...@bluewin.ch wrote:
Isaac Dupree
m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org wrote:
In general, Rust is a systems language, so fixed-size integral types are
important to have. They are better-behaved than
Carter Schonwald carter.schonw...@gmail.com
wrote:
enforce what statically? There is a very really very subtle tradeoff in
how powerful a static verification scheme can be vs how easily it can be
used (the sweet spot being somewhere in between nothing and complete
proof based verification).
Carter Schonwald carter.schonw...@gmail.com
wrote:
indeed, hence why i was saying there should be sized int variants for
each of those semantics (wrapping, trapping, overflowing, etc). This is
something that many people seem to favor, and is the right choice for
supporting smart engineers
Isaac Dupree
m...@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org wrote:
In general, Rust is a systems language, so fixed-size integral types are
important to have. They are better-behaved than in C and C++ in that
signed types are modulo, not undefined behaviour, on overflow. It could
be nice to have
David Piepgrass qwertie...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, well, I've never liked mailing lists at all, because:
1. In non-digest mode, My inbox gets flooded.
2. In digest mode, it's quite inconvenient to write a reply, having to
cut out all the messages that I don't want to reply to and manually
Andres Osinski andres.osin...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all, I have a question which I'm sure must have already been discussed
and dealt with, but I wanted to understand the design rationale:
A lot of trait-level functionality would be enhanced if a trait could
specify members to be included in
13 matches
Mail list logo
