Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
1.31 announcement #295
1.31 announcement #295
Changes from 4 commits
8f8dfbd
3f2abea
7ca425a
3ca3a1a
3d22329
4a12def
27e8405
30ae7d4
652eb15
90b0dbb
41a891c
e76a634
1539291
e790467
df9d156
397e1c2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
TODO: link to Lin's post here, for a graphic explainer of what Rust 2018 is all about.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder if we should use, or at least mention, a more real example? Maybe we should just leave it for @nikomatsakis's post, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A "mutate the original variable at the end of a
match
" example might be good. IMO That's one of the biggest pain points. Perhaps this example from the RFC?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd like to stick to the simple example for now, unless we feel really strongly about it. There's a lot in this post already, and keeping it straightforward is more important than being hyper realistic, I think.
If people feel super strongly I'm willing to change it though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@steveklabnik I don't feel super strongly about this. But I'd like to point out that we're likely to get a fair number of people from outside the normal Rust community reading this, who might not have the context for why such a change is important/useful/interesting.
If you're worried about length, perhaps we could link out to a blog post or to the RFC instead of including a more realistic example in the post?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I did link to the edition guide, which has the full details of everything; maybe we need another one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe clarify: all paths in
use
statementsThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not 100% sure what you're asking me to tweak.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This feels a bit underwhemling. I'm wondering if we can get across a bit more about why this is an improvement. For example, we could talk about how this eliminates the confusion around paths working differently at the top level module vs submodules.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was worried about the post being too long.... doing that adds a lot of length. I agree that it feels underwhelming though...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cc @eddyb @Centril
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks accurate / what we said in the tracking issue / reference;
Are you looking for something specific?
cc @oli-obk
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should state how much quicker this is, will follow up...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"Up to 20x faster"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we have these numbers? how reliable are they?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we have the detail. But I think they are reliable (the number is from a GH issue, so it must be true).