[rust-dev] std::num::pow() is inadequate / language concepts

Huon Wilson dbau.pp at gmail.com
Thu Jul 24 16:28:19 PDT 2014

On 25/07/14 09:21, Tommy M. McGuire wrote:
> On 07/24/2014 05:55 PM, Huon Wilson wrote:
>> 1.0 will not stabilise every function in every library; we have precise
>> stability attributes[1] so that the compiler can warn or error if you
>> are using functionality that is subject to change. The goal is to have
>> the entirety of the standard library classified and marked appropriately
>> for 1.0.
>> [1]: http://doc.rust-lang.org/master/rust.html#stability
> How would that solve the general problem? What would the stability of
> pow() be if Gregor had not brought up the issue now?

I was just pointing out that we aren't required to solve any/every 
library issue before 1.0 (since the text I was quoting was rightfully 
concerned about backwards incompatible API changes), not that this isn't 
an issue.


More information about the Rust-dev mailing list