On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Graydon Hoare gray...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 22/10/2012 6:52 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
I can make the translator generate integer literals as the patterns
for the arms of the match. However, I think the generated Rust code
would be nicer for humans to read with
Now that classes are gone, what’s the right way to group a bunch of
fields and methods when polymorphism is not needed?
That is, if I have a struct with some fields, some constants that make
sense in the context of that struct and some methods that operate on
the struct, how should I group them
I think it's possible to implement methods on a struct directly,
without a trait in between.
On 23 October 2012 13:17, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
Now that classes are gone, what’s the right way to group a bunch of
fields and methods when polymorphism is not needed?
That is, if I
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Lucian Branescu
lucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's possible to implement methods on a struct directly,
without a trait in between.
This does not compile:
struct Foo {
x: i32,
y: i32,
fn bar() {
},
}
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivo...@iki.fi
On 10/23/2012 02:20 PM, Lucian Branescu wrote:
I think it's possible to implement methods on a struct directly,
without a trait in between.
Indeed, like this:
struct Storage {
...
}
impl Storage {
fn listen() {
...
}
}
- Tim
On 23 October 2012 13:17, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi
Something like this
http://pcwalton.github.com/blog/2012/08/08/a-gentle-introduction-to-traits-in-rust/
On 23 October 2012 13:23, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Lucian Branescu
lucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's possible to implement methods on
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Tim Taubert ttaub...@mozilla.com wrote:
struct Storage {
...
}
impl Storage {
fn listen() {
...
}
}
Thanks.
Is there a way to scope constants under the namespace of a struct?
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivo...@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Lucian Branescu a écrit :
Something like this
http://pcwalton.github.com/blog/2012/08/08/a-gentle-introduction-to-traits-in-rust/
Very nice introduction. The only question that arises for me (coming from
c++ ground and comparing this to c++ templates) is why trait
implementation is made
The code in the Rust repo *is* the code for the snapshot compiler.
Since the Rust compiler is written in Rust, everyone has to download a
binary version of the compiler in order to compile their own copy.
In the distant past, there existed an Ocaml compiler for Rust, which
was how the process was
Thanks, this is very informative. I also have a few questions, so I
apologize in advance if I betray my ignorance.
The TLS key boilerplate would be rather unfortunate if it was forced to be
in both the API provider and the API consumer, would it be possible to
stick it in the io mod and then do
In C, Java, JS, etc., using |continue| in a |for| loop evaluates the
update expression before going back to the condition. That is, in a C
|for|, |continue| is a goto to the bottom of the loop and |continue|
in |while| is a goto to right before the condition.
What’s the correct way to write the
How will users of an API be expected to
discover all the possible signals that are available to be trapped from any
given function?
This is an existent problem on any platform with unchecked exceptions
(C#/.NET, python, ruby, etc). There's no good answer, besides auditing
of callee code or
I suspect that we can add optional static analysis (à la OCamlExc or
Haskell Catch), executed as part of a strengthened build system.
Cheers,
David
On 10/23/12 4:58 PM, Jeffery Olson wrote:
How will users of an API be expected to
discover all the possible signals that are available to be
On 10/23/12 5:30 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Is there a way to scope constants under the namespace of a struct?
Not at the moment. You can work around it by making the constants pure
inline functions.
I don't think it would be hard to add this now that we merged the type
and module
On 10/23/12 4:17 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
That would work for match but doesn’t work for using char literals for
initializing u8 arrays and the like. Absent the ability to use char
literals the same way unsuffixed integer literals work, I guess the
easiest path forward is for me to generate hex
As most people around here, I would prefer avoiding #2 and its magic
variable, unless we can wrap it in a nice syntax extension/macro.
Between #1 and #3, I prefer #1 for the exact reason James Boyden
dislikes it: it lets me concentrate on the most common path, without
having to deal with
On 10/23/12 3:44 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
On 12-10-21 09:50 PM, Benjamin Striegel wrote:
If it's not too much trouble, a complete example (using any one of the
proposed syntaxes) would be enlightening. I'm still having a hard time
imagining how OutOfKittens is defined, and how do_some_stuff et
On Oct 23, 2012, at 12:00 PM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
// Boilerplate for declaring TLS key
fn missing_file_key(_x: @HandlerPath,Reader) { }
I do not understand this line.
TLS storage needs a unique key to identify it. Right now, the way that is done,
as I understand it, is with the
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Julien Blanc wh...@tgcm.eu wrote:
Lucian Branescu a écrit :
Something like this
http://pcwalton.github.com/blog/2012/08/08/a-gentle-introduction-to-traits-in-rust/
Very nice introduction. The only question that arises for me (coming from
c++ ground and
On 10/23/2012 06:52 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
In C, Java, JS, etc., using |continue| in a |for| loop evaluates the
update expression before going back to the condition. That is, in a C
|for|, |continue| is a goto to the bottom of the loop and |continue|
in |while| is a goto to right before the
On 12-10-23 08:30 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
Finally, I would like to be sure that I understand one thing: as far as
I understand, this mechanism is not designed to handle any kind of
concurrent condition, i.e. a condition raised in one task and best
handled in another. The mechanism
On 10/23/12 10:01 PM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
On 12-10-23 08:30 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
Finally, I would like to be sure that I understand one thing: as far as
I understand, this mechanism is not designed to handle any kind of
concurrent condition, i.e. a condition raised in one
On 12-10-23 06:36 AM, Benjamin Striegel wrote:
Thanks, this is very informative. I also have a few questions, so I
apologize in advance if I betray my ignorance.
The TLS key boilerplate would be rather unfortunate if it was forced to
be in both the API provider and the API consumer, would it
On 12-10-23 09:14 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
Couldn't |missing_file| itself be the TLS key?
Probably. I believe it wasn't done that way for two reasons:
- Data addresses can be recycled by accident, due to stack/heap
reuse. Code segment addresses are Really Unique at load time.
24 matches
Mail list logo
