Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reworked guessing-game to use the random number crate found at crates.io... #22611

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jxcl
Copy link
Contributor

@jxcl jxcl commented Feb 21, 2015

r? @steveklabnik

Fixes issue #22518.

(I accidentally pushed another commit onto this PR, so I've closed and reopened it.)

Notes:

  • Removed discussion of standard library from guessing game in the context of
    std::rand because rand is no longer part of the standard library. Maybe it
    can be put back in in the discussion of I/O?
  • The compiler is now able to infer the return type of rand::random() without
    any type annotations.
    let secret_number = (rand::random() % 100) + 1; // secret_number: i32

….io.

Notes:
- Removed discussion of standard library from guessing game in the context of
  std::rand because rand is no longer part of the standard library. Maybe it
  can be put back in in the discussion of I/O?

- The compiler is now able to infer the return type of rand::random() without
  any type annotations.
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @steveklabnik (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. The way Github handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

@jxcl while I appreciate this, I'm not ready to move forward on it yet. rand may come back in enough form by 1.0 that we don't need to make this churn. If it doesn't, we should start from this patch, though. I'm going to give this a close until we figure out the schedule.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants