Re: [rust-dev] Portland, OR Friday 6:30pm: Patrick Walton & Jack Moffitt talk sprocketnes & Servo

2013-07-27 Thread Brian Anderson
On 07/24/2013 11:05 PM, Tom Lee wrote: Hey all, If you're in Portland, OR this week -- as many are for OSCON -- Patrick Walton & Jack Moffitt are taking some time out of their schedules to talk Rust this Friday evening, 26th of July @ 6:30pm: http://calagator.org/events/1250464569 All welcome,

Re: [rust-dev] RFC: Removing *T

2013-07-27 Thread Erick Tryzelaar
Hey Gábor! This is a neat observation! I especially like how Option<&T> represents nullable pointers. However, I am not sure if a bottom region as you described quite captures the right semantics. While it's neat how it falls out naturally that you need to use an unsafe block to dereference a `&'u

Re: [rust-dev] 'in' for for loops and alloc exprs

2013-07-27 Thread Thad Guidry
Ian, Graydon, Community, I am fairly NEW to programming in current languages at all... So I am a great guinea pig for testing all these conversations about "What would a beginner to Rust...or even programming languages in general" think about this ? I personally think that "dot notation" is fine,

Re: [rust-dev] RFC: Removing *T

2013-07-27 Thread Gábor Lehel
Some discussion has sprouted on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1j5vbn/rustdev_rfc_removing_t/ On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Gábor Lehel wrote: > Spurred by https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/7694 I was thinking > about the differences between `*` and `&` and the reason both

Re: [rust-dev] 'in' for for loops and alloc exprs

2013-07-27 Thread Ian P. Cooke
On Jul 27, 2013, at 10:48 , Zoltán Tóth wrote: > Then the coder can drop the pattern part without making the wording weird: > > loop 10.times() { ... } > This syntax has always bugged me. I always read it as "send the message 'times' to the object named '10'" but 10 is an integer literal and

Re: [rust-dev] 'in' for for loops and alloc exprs

2013-07-27 Thread Armin Ronacher
Hi, On 27/07/2013 17:48, Zoltán Tóth wrote: What about changing the order? Not a fan. However at that point you can also use "=>": loop [1, 2, 3] => i { ... } Generally though huge +1 on "for in " just because it's very familiar to people. "in" is a common keyword and can also be uti

Re: [rust-dev] 'in' for for loops and alloc exprs

2013-07-27 Thread Zoltán Tóth
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote: > > for in { ... } > > What about changing the order? I mean: in for { ... } or loop with { ... } Then the coder can drop the pattern part without making the wording weird: loop 10.times() { ... } My motivation is actaully somethi

[rust-dev] RFC: Removing *T

2013-07-27 Thread Gábor Lehel
Spurred by https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/7694 I was thinking about the differences between `*` and `&` and the reason both need to exist. As far as I can tell the differences boil down to: - The compiler makes no attempt to enforce any invariants for `*T` Meaning that, in an interesti

[rust-dev] Great summary of Windows Compiler Toolchain Options

2013-07-27 Thread Thad Guidry
I recently found the QT project has a great summary of the state of things for Windows users concerning Toolchains and Compiler choices supporting Exception Handling and their differences. http://qt-project.org/wiki/MinGW-64-bit -- -Thad Thad on Freebase.com