Re:GitHub – nushell/nushell: A new type of shell
by steveklabnik on Wednesday June 16, 2021 @09:37AM
(#27528374)
Two out of three of those things have nothing to do with editions. The final one is basically saying “you can’t make huge changes,” and I’m not sure how that’s a criticism of the possibility of “in 40 years there will be too many changes.”
Re:GitHub – nushell/nushell: A new type of shell
by pjmlp on Thursday June 17, 2021 @02:10AM
(#27536561)
> Therefore, the answer to the question of, say, “what is a valid C++14 program?” changes over time, up until the publication of C++17, and so forth. In practice, the situation is a bit more complicated when compiler vendors offer conformance modes for specific language revisions (e.g. -std=c++11, -std=c++17). Vendors may consider defect resolutions to apply to any historic revision that contains the defect (whereas ISO considers only the most recent publication as the Standard).
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p213...
Feel free to think I am only doing FUD, and coming from C++ side I am clueless about how editions will fare in the future.
They only work in the ideal case that whole dependencies are available as source code, the same compiler is used for the whole compilation process and for light syntactic changes.
In fact for IntoIterator, a small fix to the editions was made, https://blog.rust-lang.org/2021/05/11/edition-2021.html
With 40 years of history, several Rust compilers in production, corporations shipping binary crates, expect the editions to be as effective as ISO/ECMA language editions.