3 ms·

If the 'unused variable'-handling is the only thing that holds you back: it's quite simple to build the zig compiler and patch it. See this post by ryuukk in th

If the 'unused variable'-handling is the only thing that holds you back: it's quite simple to build the zig compiler and patch it. See this post by ryuukk in the corresponding issue on github: https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/335#issuecomment-1013800916 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/335#issuecomment-10138... and also https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/335#issuecomment-1018439327 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/335#issuecomment-10184... I use this method to build a zig compiler to work with, and when I build a release build of my zig-project I switch to the official compiler and fix the handful 'unused variable' errors. Works fine for me.

ihateolives 4y ago
Having to build your own version of the compiler to fix this annoyance is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It should be a simple flag, whichever way the default, but it shouldn't require building a compiler. That's nuts, both in a bad and a good way.
- anonymoushn 4y ago
  I have my own version of the stdlib because I don't think formatting a number with leading zeroes should involve parsing UTF-8. It's pretty easy! I once said I would like arrays of 33 or more items to be Default and my resident Rustacean told me step 1 is to rebuild libcore after changing the appropriate macro :)
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    That funny. I have one where octal is banned.
- chienandalou 4y ago
  I agree, it should be a flag. Or it should be a warning in debug builds, and an error in release builds. I'm not sure it's nuts to build the compiler to 'fix' this, though. Customizing and building a tool really isn't such a big deal when you think about it.
delphLonepaw 4y ago
I think the unused error is great, and a lot of people once they got used to it, it becomes quite the useful message, some bugs and some mistakes not easy to catch are quite there now. Giving it a bit of time is a good way to get used to it and ends generally (at least in my opinion) in better code. Outside that :shrug:

ihateolives 4y ago

Having to build your own version of the compiler to fix this annoyance is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It should be a simple flag, whichever way the default, but it shouldn't require building a compiler. That's nuts, both in a bad and a good way.

anonymoushn 4y ago
I have my own version of the stdlib because I don't think formatting a number with leading zeroes should involve parsing UTF-8. It's pretty easy! I once said I would like arrays of 33 or more items to be Default and my resident Rustacean told me step 1 is to rebuild libcore after changing the appropriate macro :)
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  That funny. I have one where octal is banned.
chienandalou 4y ago
I agree, it should be a flag. Or it should be a warning in debug builds, and an error in release builds. I'm not sure it's nuts to build the compiler to 'fix' this, though. Customizing and building a tool really isn't such a big deal when you think about it.

delphLonepaw 4y ago

I think the unused error is great, and a lot of people once they got used to it, it becomes quite the useful message, some bugs and some mistakes not easy to catch are quite there now. Giving it a bit of time is a good way to get used to it and ends generally (at least in my opinion) in better code. Outside that :shrug: