Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

No, that wasn't for soundness fixes. This is from the discussion surrounding syntax changes like turbofish or chained if-let bindings.

Can you point me towards an authoritative post in the turbofish discussion that says that it can't happen because of backwards-compatibility changes? Because before it was locked it seemed that the language team wanted to go ahead.

I've been repeatedly told by language team members that the policy you're promising people doesn't exist. I would really appreciate it if there was further clarification.



Those things didn’t happen yet. I’m talking about the ones that did happen.

My understanding is that, again, some lang team members want a different policy. That doesn’t mean that it’s actually different.


Where do you get that understanding? All the comments and the summaries I've seen by language team members on this give me a different impression. See this comment from Niko for example: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53668#issuecomment-...

So, can you point me to a comment that tells me that the policy still holds and is as you are presenting it?


The language evolution RFC.


How do you square your interpretation with the comment I linked to above?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: