On 01/29/2014 11:44 AM, Niko Matsakis wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:01:44PM -0500, comex wrote:
Actually, Rust already has procedural macros as of recently. I was
wondering whether that could be combined with the proposed new system.
I haven't looked in detail at the procedural macro
It sounds like you're proposing that arbitrary functions may be eligible for
CTFE if they happen to meet all the requirements, without any special
annotations. This seems like a bad idea to me. I understand why it's
attractive, but it means that seemingly harmless changes to a function's
Out of that list of requirements, #5 (doesn't perform I/O actions) is the
one that strikes me as least well-defined. Could you elaborate on how you
would enforce it?
Cheers,
Josh
On 28 January 2014 14:15, Pierre Talbot ptal...@hyc.io wrote:
Hi,
The Mozilla foundation proposes research
On 01/28/2014 11:24 PM, Kevin Ballard wrote:
It sounds like you're proposing that arbitrary functions may be eligible for
CTFE if they happen to meet all the requirements, without any special
annotations. This seems like a bad idea to me. I understand why it's
attractive, but it means that
That's what I figured. Forbidding unsafe is definitely a good way to keep
things simple starting out. Compile time evaluation can always be extended
later on.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Pierre Talbot ptal...@hyc.io wrote:
On 01/28/2014 11:26 PM, Eric Reed wrote:
Looks pretty reasonable
The way it is implemented in Rust is by using the libc, but the
requirement #6 says we can't call external function, so implicitly the
problem is solved. I'm agree that it isn't formal, but I can't come up
with a better solution for now.
You made me think of another requirements (so basic
On 29/01/14 10:45, Kevin Ballard wrote:
On Jan 28, 2014, at 3:16 PM, Pierre Talbot ptal...@hyc.io wrote:
On 01/28/2014 11:24 PM, Kevin Ballard wrote:
It sounds like you're proposing that arbitrary functions may be eligible for
CTFE if they happen to meet all the requirements, without any
