3 ms·
There was one in 2017 [0], and work started back then is going to be continued over the year [1]. It's not clear to me if there are going to be any new ergonomi
by rhn_mk1 9y ago
There was one in 2017 [0], and work started back then is going to be continued over the year [1]. It's not clear to me if there are going to be any new ergonomics proposals though.
[0] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/03/02/lang-ergonomics.html https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/03/02/lang-ergonomics.html
[1] https://blog.rust-lang.org/2018/03/12/roadmap.html https://blog.rust-lang.org/2018/03/12/roadmap.html
- oblio 9y agoYou misread my comment, I think. I know that there are Rust ergonomics initiatives. My question was: is there anything bad like he described in his post in one of these initiatives? Or is he just tilting at windmills?
- the_mitsuhiko 9y agoThe process is open for anyone to submit proposals so nothing stops wacky ideas to end up in rfc’s. That does not mean they have a realistic chance of being accepted. Nothing wacky was even close to being accepted. The weirdest proposal that made it into rust was auto deref and I think that’s a question of balance. I am on the side of the advantages outweigh the disavantages and rust without auto deref would not be a sane language but maybe some other patterns would have emerged.
- brson 9y agoI think no. The stuff the op is describing is mostly not on the ergonomics agenda (I was thinking "strawman" while reading this), except for possibly limited automotic cloning for trivial types like `Rc`. It doesn't seem to describe the team's actual thinking about ergonomics. The Rust team is very aware of the importance of writing foolproof correct code in Rust (that's what it is designed for), and unless some major shift happens, I doubt they would make any major correctness sacrifices for the sake of ergonomics.