On the other hand the registry is immutible, so perhaps we should just embrace not needing everything in std?
-
-
That's great until you get append-only malware
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Yeah, I’m wary of making std bigger myself. We already have stuff in the stdlib that’s widely disliked (MPSC channels).
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
I guess what Rust needs is a working deprecation policy. Even Java gave up on the "never fix/remove anything" approach a while ago.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
stuff does get deprecated in libstd, only it doesn't get removed
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tshepang_dev @pcwalton and
That's what I meant with a "working" deprecation policy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
yeah, would be nice to clean house
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tshepang_dev @oxnrtr and
I thought editions made it possible to remove features that were deprecated in previous editions, e.g. it’d be nice if the next edition completely removed mem::unitialized()
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bascule @tshepang_dev and
Editions can only change the language, not the standard library
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sgrif @tshepang_dev and
orly, mem::uninitialized() is forever then eh?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Even if a new edition somehow rejected it, you could still link a dependency using an old edition which used it.
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.