Hanno Braun

@viperscape Interesting, thanks for the links! > I was interested mostly in concurrency and ended up working on a message passing concept. I'd like to see a more generic approach...

Once upon a time, the `world!` syntax was more complex than it is today and it actually was possible to explicitly specify the name for various things, although I don't...

The question still stands: What would that achieve that can't be achieved with a type declaration now? Obviously the syntax would be different, but is that worth the added complexity?

You know what, let's do it. I'm still not convinced we need it, but it seems important to you, so if you're willing to implement it, I don't see a...

This was based on a misunderstanding, see https://github.com/hannobraun/rustecs/pull/12#issuecomment-66185312. I'm leaving this open, since is wouldn't hurt to add a comment to that test, to prevent similar misunderstandings in the future....

Yeah, now that you brought it up, I see how it's easy to misunderstand :) Again, sorry for your trouble, I completely misunderstood you and initially thought you were referring...

While I'm changing things, might as well consider renaming `define` to `def`. It's a common enough thing that it warrants a shortened name.

That definitely would be a good idea. Although getting it working on any current version at all would be a good first step.

I haven't followed this closely, but a general note: It would make our (the maintainers) life MUCH easier, if you could submit as much as possible in as many self-contained...

To be clear, improvements and fixes are definitely welcome. I'm just saying, I hope when they're ready they'll arrive in neat packages :smile: