On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:44:24PM -0400, David Renshaw wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm playing around with a Rust implementation for Cap'n Proto. Check
it out: http://github.com/dwrensha/capnproto-rust . I welcome any
comments or contributions.
The reason I'm sharing this project with you now
Hello,
Sorry for the bikesheddy question, but coming from a Haskell perspective
it's strange that io::Reader::read_byte returns (1) an int, when the value
you're reading is a byte, and (2) a negative value on error/EOF. The
unspecified sentinel value means the pattern match needs to look like:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Evan Martin mart...@danga.com wrote:
It would seem more natural to me for it to return an Optionu8, but that
leads to two questions:
1) Is it more Rusty to use types like this instead of sentinels? My
aesthetics aren't adapted to Rust yet.
Yes. Optionu8 is
On 25/07/2013, at 2:15 AM, Evan Martin mart...@danga.com wrote:
Is an Optionu8 implemented as a pair of (type, value) or is it packed into
a single word?
A quick test shows:
rusti std::sys::size_of::Optionu8()
16
~Brendan___
Rust-dev
Given that all values of u8 are meanginful, there is no space for an extra
bit, so it is no surprise that it cannot be packed.
For pointers, for example, it is typical to exploit the fact that the null
pointer is a meaningless value and thus rely on this sentinel value to
encode the absence of
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Matthieu Monrocq
matthieu.monr...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that all values of u8 are meanginful, there is no space for an extra
bit, so it is no surprise that it cannot be packed.
For pointers, for example, it is typical to exploit the fact that the null
It could be.
If it is not, it may be that Option needs some love at the CodeGen level to
make it so :)
-- Matthieu.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Corey Richardson co...@octayn.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Matthieu Monrocq
matthieu.monr...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that all
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Brendan Zabarauskas
bjz...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On 25/07/2013, at 2:15 AM, Evan Martin mart...@danga.com wrote:
Is an Optionu8 implemented as a pair of (type, value) or is it packed into
a single word?
A quick test shows:
rusti
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Matthieu Monrocq
matthieu.monr...@gmail.com wrote:
It could be.
If it is not, it may be that Option needs some love at the CodeGen level to
make it so :)
-- Matthieu.
It's a known issue for enums in general. The `Option` type is entirely
a library feature,
On 13-07-24 09:33 AM, Brendan Zabarauskas wrote:
On 25/07/2013, at 2:15 AM, Evan Martin mart...@danga.com
mailto:mart...@danga.com wrote:
Is an Optionu8 implemented as a pair of (type, value) or is it
packed into a single word?
A quick test shows:
rusti std::sys::size_of::Optionu8()
The existence of ref patterns somewhat limits what one can do here as
well, since you must be able to create a pointer to the value being
matched, which implies that it can't be too disguised. For example,
this prevents us from optimizing something like `Either~A,~B` to use
a 0 or 1 in the low
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Jed Davis j...@panix.com wrote:
It's not quite as simple as it sounds, because there's unsafe code
that's transmuting ints to C-like enums, and passing C-like enums to C
functions that expect an actual C enum (or some other integral type).
So this more or less
Looks like it's broken at the moment. If I try to compile this program:
trait Constructable'self { fn construct(v : 'self[u8]) - Self; }
fn main() { }
I get this error:
error: internal compiler error: ty::Region#subst(): Reference to self
region when given substs with no self region:
Hi,
We had some discussion recently about reforming the for-loop syntax
since we'll be switching it to external iterators and it's a bit
deceptive to the user to be writing a lambda-pattern there. Many people
have suggested we use a simple and familiar:
for pattern in expr { ... }
form.
We had some discussion recently about reforming the for-loop syntax
since we'll be switching it to external iterators and it's a bit
deceptive to the user to be writing a lambda-pattern there.
Have we yet considered C++11's approach to this?
for name : expr { ... }
This seems pretty
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Jeaye je...@arrownext.com wrote:
We had some discussion recently about reforming the for-loop syntax since
we'll be switching it to external iterators and it's a bit deceptive to the
user to be writing a lambda-pattern there.
Have we yet considered C++11's
- No-pattern form now requires a dummy pattern. That is, we can't do:
for 10.times { ... }
anymore, rather we have to write:
for _ in 10.times() { ... }
I will not cry much if this happens; it is a bit clever, but maybe we
could save it by using loop:
loop 10.times { ...
17 matches
Mail list logo
