News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Rust is not a good C replacement. Parent comment

Re:Rust is not a good C replacement by TheCoelacanth on Monday March 25, 2019 @11:52AM (#19483611)
What do you want out of an informal spec that isn't provided by "The Rust Reference"[1]?

[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/index.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust is not a good C replacement by skybrian on Monday March 25, 2019 @12:22PM (#19483907)
It's useful but I'd like to see a bit more top-level completeness. Every feature should be listed and have at least a cursory description, even if it's not entirely nailed down.

(Maybe it already is like that, but the disclaimers say it's not.)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust is not a good C replacement by steveklabnik on Monday March 25, 2019 @01:00PM (#19484265)
The vast, vast majority does, but there may be some missing bits. Printed out, it's about 170 sheets of paper, so there's a lot there.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust is not a good C replacement by edflsafoiewq on Monday March 25, 2019 @01:51PM (#19484793)
Borrow checking rules.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Rust is not a good C replacement by cogman10 on Monday March 25, 2019 @05:19PM (#19486837)
I don't know what the current state of affairs is, but this is something they have rightly delayed specing. The original borrow checking rules were quite byzantine compared to what we have today.

I don't know if there is active work going towards making them more relaxed (NLL landed I believe). However, a ton of work has happened to get them out of the way as much as possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]