> If the programmer knows what the error is, and how to correct it, then their program should automatically do so, rather than molesting the user But then the

> If the programmer knows what the error is, and how to correct it, then their program should automatically do so, rather than molesting the user But then the meaning of that syntactic construct differs contextually. Even if it could be parsed efficiently, it still goes against Rust's principal of favoring explicitness over convenience. > Another cardinal sin and a sign of lack of thinking things through is breaking backward compatibility, The examples Steve cited span throughout Rust's history, way before any commitment was made to backwards-compatibility. These sort of changes won't happen anymore (it'd require a "Rust 2.0").