You're right that the impls can be static, in which case interfaces
don't enter into it. Also, method names can overlap in Rust (unlike in
Haskell) without causing conflicts. So I guess this is not a direct
issue. And yes, I do intend to implement support for super-interfaces,
they seem to be
If source control was the distribution method, things like git's
submodules already do provide a way to precisely manage the versions
of dependencies.
There are probably some better ways, of course. For example, I think
Scott Kilpatrick is working on a module language for Haskell:
On 1/22/2012 6:41 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
As soon as I find some time (and if nobody has done it yet), I'll get
working on a Mac installer. What's the preferred strategy? Should the
Mac installer essentially contain the .tgz and build from source? Or do
we have a reference script
On 1/26/2012 5:41 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
A bit opposed to both, sadly. I quite like picking up impls by
accident via import foo::*, and dislike the aesthetic of -.
Is import impl foo::* bad?
Depends what it means! Does it pull in the same stuff that import
foo::* pulls in, in addition
On 1/26/12 6:35 PM, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
As a potential user of the language, I have to agree with Graydon. In
particular I do not like the idea of having to use a different symbol
for what I see as method access and field access.
Ok, let's not do it then.
Patrick
