Relatively crude tools like `run rust` or
`rustxhttps://github.com/killerswan/rustx/blob/master/build/rustx`
go a long way, but they're not a substitute for properly learning the
module system or for having a good REPL handy. It seems silly to bin an
experimental feature out of the fear that the
There's already an experimental notice.
On 31 May 2013 17:11, Kevin Cantu m...@kevincantu.org wrote:
Relatively crude tools like `run rust` or
`rustxhttps://github.com/killerswan/rustx/blob/master/build/rustx`
go a long way, but they're not a substitute for properly learning the
module
On 2013-05-29, at 07:17 , Alex Crichton wrote:
In my opinion, rusti gets the job done. Yes, having in-memory compiled state
would work a lot better. But I don't know how viable that is. I know for a
fact that a big feature plan is to have the compiler only partially compile
when applicable,
On 13-05-28 09:03 PM, Alex Crichton wrote:
Now this doesn't sound that bad in theory. Normally rusti is for quick
computations. There's not much of a history and nothing really takes a
long time. This quickly becomes a problem though for anything which
uses resources. Let's say that you call
On May 29, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
...
I agree that a 'rust run' command, or indeed exploiting our support for
shebang comments[1], should be sufficient for most users. But I'm not
convinced the repl serves no purpose, yet (though it's true, I don't use
seem to ever use it;
RUST RUN. FTW. :-)
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, John Clements cleme...@brinckerhoff.orgwrote:
On May 29, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Graydon Hoare wrote:
...
I agree that a 'rust run' command, or indeed exploiting our support for
shebang comments[1], should be sufficient for most users.
I've been tinkering with rusti recently, and I'm reaching the
conclusion that it should be removed entirely from the compiler. As
many people are probably aware, rusti hasn't been working
fantastically for awhile now, but that's only partially why I think
that it should be removed.
- What I think
Disclaimer: I may be slightly biased because I originally committed the
rusti code.
I think the general conclusion you've come to here is that a tool that is
explicitly marked as experimental is in fact, experimental. Good language
tools, especially REPLs, don't pop up into existence out of
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Alex Crichton a...@crichton.co wrote:
In my opinion, the point of rusti is to be a REPL for rust.
Is this a matter of opinion? I thought it was a fact! :)
- What rusti is
The way that rusti works today in my opinion is a bit hacky once you
look inside. It
Thanks for your input! It sounds like one thing we can definitely
agree that rustc isn't ready for a rusti-like tool to work 100% today.
I knew that pretty printing history into a big list of strings was a bad way
for it to work, but there was no other way to make it work at the time. Each
10 matches
Mail list logo
