Language Design: Fixing Rust's mistakes – Syntax
Language Design: Fixing Rust's mistakes – Syntax
Language Design: Fixing Rust's mistakes – Syntax
Language Design: Fixing Rust's mistakes – Syntax
LixCon 2026
Language Design: Annotations Obsolete Modifiers
Language Design: Annotations Obsolete Modifiers
It's OK to compare floating-points for equality
Why I am moving away from Scala
39C3: Power Cycles – Live-Streams
Concrete syntax matters
Library Design: Naming Conventions – Streaming
Super-flat ASTs
Language Design Notes
Library Design: Naming Conventions – Lookup
losing language features: some stories about disjoint unions
Intel's original 64bit extensions for x86
X Design Notes: Unifying OCaml Modules and Values
The Core of Rust
Zig's Lovely Syntax
Library Design: Naming Conventions – Option & Result
(Quite) A Few Words About Async
Thank you for letting me know your thoughts!
Maybe not "very big", but I agree with your point in principle.
The reason why I think it is worthwhile (compared to e. g. range syntax) is that we are paying for it anyway already:
Good error reporting hinges on parsing not strictly the language that's defined, but understanding the language that people actually write – and people forget
;all the time.So from my POV I'm turning an error reporting step (that I'd have to implement anyway) into something more useful.
To be honest, if all the fancy formatting stuff requires a macro, so be it.
I just don't want to need macros for creating a list and so on.