On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.com
wrote:
... in C++. Not in Rust. That's because, unlike C++, Rust is designed
from the ground up to support moves and copies in a first class way.
As a C++ dev, I feel the need to say THANK YOU for that. Rust being
designed
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Nick Cameron li...@ncameron.org wrote:
I found all the clone()s in Rust unpleasant, it really put me off using
ref counting.
I consider that to be a feature, not a bug.
Given that this is something C++ programmers coming to Rust will be used
to using, I
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Felix S. Klock II pnkfe...@mozilla.comwrote:
On 19/02/2014 21:12, Flaper87 wrote:
2. Approval Process
[...] For example, requiring 2 r+ from 2 different reviewers instead of
1. This might seem a bit drastic now, however as the number of contributors
I'll second Armin and Corey here; if lib A and B depend on different
versions of lib C, you *must* still be able to easily build and link them
together as deps of lib D. This is *critical* in large codebases where it's
not feasible to go into A and B and update which version of C they depend
on
On Jan 27, 2014 8:53 PM, Jeremy Ong jeremyc...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm somewhat new to the Rust dev scene. Would anybody care to summarize
roughly what the deficiencies are in the existing system in the interest of
forward progress? It may help seed the discussion for the next effort as
well.
I'd
This is an interesting thread. A few points:
- box makes a lot more sense than new; as others have pointed out, the
latter maps to a different concept in C++ which makes it familiar in the
worst way.
- Foo::init is terrible, agreed, but Foo::new is less than ideal as
well. Foo::create might be
Agreed with Daniel. The D approach would be best. They one frontend and
then dmd (frontend + proprietary backend), ldc (frontend + llvm) and gdc
(frontend + gcc backends) use that. This would be the best for the Rust
ecosystem, users and developers of the various compilers; there's no
duplication
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Ranges are a more
modern implementation of iterators and are much more easily composed.
Ranges are also trivially memory safe, and I doubt that split
current/end iterators can provide memory safety with only references.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Niko Matsakis n...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 09:33:15PM +0100, Gábor Lehel wrote:
This is an even sillier idea, but then what about keeping `loop` and
dropping `while`?
We considered this for a while -- as well as making `loop if` be the
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
The expression ~([1, 2, 3]) has a different type than the expression
~[1, 2, 3]. The former is an owned box containing a fixed size array
(~[int, ..3]) and the latter is a dynamic array (~[int]).
The ~str and ~[T]
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.comwrote:
I agree that we should change this, but give us some credit: it's only an
obvious design mistake now that we've gotten to this point.
[...]
The current status is the product of the slow evolution of a design that
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Gokcehan Kara gokcehank...@gmail.comwrote:
I will be speculating a little since I haven't actually read the source.
As far as I understand, YouCompleteMe uses python for some parts but at its
core it has a cpp component using libclang library. libclang library
12 matches
Mail list logo
