1. 24
  1.  

  2. 17

    First time I’m in the “thanks” :)

    1. 1

      Cool! What was your contribution?

      1. 5

        It was very small: more helpful diagnostics for deprecated features. But I got my feet wet.

    2. 2

      I thought this was the release that was going to have async/await?

      1. 3

        Looks like it was never going to be.

        That’s a shame, too, as rust’s current solutions of “write pthreads but with fewer features” or “chained call hell” are both underwhelming.

        1. 1

          Do you know if the 1.31 beta (TBA on Monday, according to the article) is going to have them?

          1. 1

            I don’t think so, the tracking issues I found are nowhere near completion.

            1. 6

              async/await is pushed to next year. Sadly. I’m also very annoyed by this :/. I support the why (the wish to deliver a very good feature) and see why it doesn’t happen, though.

              The syntax will be blocked on edition 2018.

      2. 1

        Now, it will check the first part of the path and see if it’s an extern crate, and if it is, use it regardless of where you’re at in the module hierarchy.

        Isn’t this the opposite behavior of what you want? I’d expect it to check first if the path is available in the current module, not check the root first.

        1. -1

          “Exciting” is silly hyperbole. Nevertheless, procedural macros brings lots of interesting software one large step closer to being buildable in stable.

          1. 1

            “Exciting” is silly hyperbole.

            Even PLs need to talk like brands now.

            1. 1

              If you look at their history, they might have always been brands. A number of companies even marketed them along with tools. If anything, the recent marketing is just accepting reality and doing more of what works.

              1. 1

                Yeah. Feels like the tools space kind of got commercialized to me, thus my acidic take.

                1. 1

                  If you look at their history, they might have always been brands.

                  Off-topic, but damn. I looked at this comment and spent several seconds trying to figure out which person you were referring to with “their” and “they” in this sentence. Couldn’t the English-speaking world just agree on using one of the explicit gender-neutral pronouns?

                  1. 2

                    Probably not. I was talking about companies mostly, though.