For instance: The C++ specification, the Go specification, and the Definition of Standard ML all have wildly different goals and style, despite all three being “specs”.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think this is a general point about software specification: both that there are a wide variety of kinds of specs, and that the line between specification and documentation is hard to make precise.
-
Yeah, it’s a case in which Rust gets punished for doing the conservative thing. Most other languages would just call the Rust Reference a “spec” and call it a day, but the bar that Rust has historically set for a “spec” is probably so high it will never be reached.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Spoken like someone that works on a language without a spec.
-
Rename the Rust reference to the Rust “specification” and you have something basically equivalent to the Go specification.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
need a spec for "have a spec" :(
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'd say that it's not a spec unless it's either standardized or someone has built a conforming alternative implementation. Until then it might be an excellent document but it's not really been tested
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree that Rust has a better spec than a lot of other languages that have "specs". The big question for me is what would need to be done to make "behavior considered unsafe" https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-undefined.html … not depend on LLVM's (unspecified afaik) equivalent.
-
Wow, I didn't know this. That is...not great.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.