dasfasf

A interesting property of Japanese is that a sentence is also a subordinate clause. For example

Tarou wa Noriko wo toshokan de mimashita. (Tarou saw Noriko at the library.)

Tarou wa Noriko wo mimashita. (Tarou saw Noriko.)

Tarou wa Noriko wo mimashita toshokan (The library where Tarou saw Noriko)

Generally "<sentence> <noun>" means "the <noun> such that <noun> <particle> <sentence> is true for some choice of <particle>".

Which makes the timing all the more inscrutable. AV1 is supposed to have its bitstream finalized this month. Why now, when WebM is so widespread and there are new formats on the horizon, resurrect APNG after neglecting it at the only time it was relevant?

You can already do all this. In practice, I've never seen a site render its text and ads to a canvas to make things difficult for me.

IMO, the bigger obstacle to "content that can't be linked, saved/archived, mirrored, cached, shared, translated or made otherwise accessible" is the "fundamental architecture of the web": HTTP. You can't link it (who knows if the person who clicks the link will get the same page?), you can't cache it (who knows when to invalidate it?), you can't mirror it (who can enumerate the dependencies?), and so on. Something like IPFS would fix these things (and should fix these things). But in practice, a fairly cacheable, linkable, mirrorable, sharable web has been built on HTTP and I expect nothing much will change when wasm is thrown into the big vat of web technologies too.

Use autoscrolling.

Every number system in which all numbers occupy the same amount of space must have this property (namely, that there are roughly as many positive numbers above 1 as below 1, and therefore that there is greater precision near 0) or the accuracy of the function x->1/x will suffer.

Jackmott is the one who introduced the standard of "controlled experiments". Why doesn't he propose an experiment design which will shed light on the question of whether classes are harmful or not?

For one, traits are inherently static and their methods are statically dispatched, somewhat like a concept. Traits which satisfy certain conditions which make them "base class-like" can be reified as a trait object, which is a vtable ptr + data ptr pair, which dynamically dispatches through the vtable. The separation of the vtable ptr from the object means every trait object gives you dynamic dispatch for one trait only and you can have an unbounded number of trait objects, in contrast to C++ where you have dynamic dispatch through the finite number of base classes listed by the class author.

I use error_chain

    let a = foo().chain_err(|| "failed to foo")?;

Just "bought" implies that the sale of the books is compassed in the past. It sounds strange because no explicit compass is mentioned and the reader suspects they are still for sale. I don't see anything wrong with "at least" though. Note that "over" changes the meaning (>= vs. >) and at least some prescriptivists obelize using "over" like that (I believe the AP Stylebook used to).

Has this ever actually caused you confusion?

It's neat how you can see immigration policy being enacted though. China goes dark in 1882 (Chinese Exclusion Act), then Russia lights up for the New Immigration near the turn of the century and goes dark in 1924 (Immigration Act of 1924), and then everything opens up in 1965.

To be honest, I'm not seeing your pointing this out as relevant. I never claimed Rust should have a spec at this point in its life, or claimed any other language had a spec at an equivalent point in its life, and I explicitly disclaimed any criticism. I objected only to the statement that Rust is "just as finalized as any other language". Talking about other languages' youth and whether being specified early is a good thing is especially disingenuous, since the topic of the thread was whether Rust was a good candidate to use now, compared against other languages as they exist now, not making some kind of "fair" comparison against their early versions.

Not if you weight by use. C, C++, Java, Javascript, and C# all have specs. Among the most popular languages, it's really only the scripting languages that have the "as our implementation does" perspective on specification. I've always used languages that have standard documents, and communities that think those standard document are very important, so rather than being unreasonable, I think of complete language documentation as the natural state of the world.

Incidentally, this isn't really a criticism, but it's precisely because I don't see Rust as finalized that it isn't. A language that's finalized but not specified is just poorly documented.

Rust is not as finalized as any of the languages whose semantics are completely defined by a standard document. There is no definitive answer to the question of what a great many pieces of Rust do beyond checking out rustc from the commit date and examining the LLVM IR.