It's "the GNU Rust language" now :)
@bugaevc As I understand it, there is no formal specification of Rust at the moment. That would imply that any version of Rust is a local version, no?
@bugaevc I meant that even Rust as released by the Rust Foundation is *their* version of the language, not an official version per se. Can there be an official version of a programming language if there are implementations, but no formal standard?
@mpjgregoire can there be an official version of Linux if there's an implementation, but not a public standard?
@mpjgregoire there is some difference between Rust the language, and the dialect of Rust accepted by rustc. (For instance, rustc supports a bunch of its own private attributes).
What you could say is that Rust the language is not formally defined; which is the same thing as saying the formal spec is not yet finished.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!