regex-automata VS Rustup

I believe you're the second person to tell me they were confused by this, so there are probably several others confused but didn't say anything. I've added a warning to the top of regex-automata's README.

For anyone following along at home, we're having a very helpful discussion about the implementation I posted in my sibling comment here: https://github.com/BurntSushi/regex-automata/issues/30

My current technique only gets applied to alternations of simple literals. But the idea is generalizeable and I speculate that it is actually impactful to generalize it.

(I could use '_ => {}' instead of 'None' to save a few more.)

I do find the 'if let' variant to be a bit easier to read. It's optimizing for a particular and somewhat common case, so it does of course overlap with 'match'. But I don't find this particular overlap to be too bad. It's usually pretty clear when to use one vs the other.

But like I said, I could live without 'if let'. It is not a major quality of life enhancement to me. Neither will its impending extensions. i.e., 'if let pattern = foo && some_booolean_condition {'.

[1]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/regex-automata/blob/fbae906823...

[2]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/regex-automata/blob/fbae906823...

(The work on regex-automata 0.2 has been underway for over a year now.](https://github.com/BurntSushi/regex-automata/tree/ag/work) There's a lot done, but still a lot more to go. Once that's done, regex proper should be pretty close to a thin layer that glues regex-syntax, regex-automata, memchr and aho-corasick together. I don't currently expect regex to grow any more dependencies than that. And as it is, aho-corasick and memchr are both optional dependencies. Right now, regex-syntax is the only required dependency, but regex-automata will be added to that list.

I got it to finally work by following this

If you are someone actively using such relative-path toolchains, please contact us (Discord / Github issues).

We had a snap package; we removed it in mid 2022

I don't know. The PR references prior discussion without a link, so it may have been private.

As long as he doesn't put hidden folders in your root like rust. https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/issues/341

I think you're being upvoted by folks who don't know better, which is a shame because you're making things up :/. The telemetry feature in rustup kept everything local and never "pinged home". And you had to enable it with a command `rustup telemetry enable`. And it just logged JSON files at the path you mentioned. By 2019, the feature was disabled (see: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/issues/341 ) because no one worked on it and it just gathered bugs.

FWIW, there is a proposal to add telemetry to LLVM [0] and Rust used to have telemetry [1], both off by default. Some things in the node.js world have telemetry enabled by default, like Next.js [3].

Some people are posting here as if this as already decided -- AFIACT, that's not the case. It's not even a formal proposal yet, and the stated intent was to start a conversation around something concrete. (For context, this is standard for how I've seen the Go project approaches large topics, including for example I think there were something like ~8 very detailed generics design drafts from the core Go team over ~10 years).

It sounds like the Go team is going to take some time to look into some of the alternative approaches suggested in the feedback collected so far.

In any event, this is obviously a topic people are very passionate about, especially opt-in vs. opt-out, but I guess I would suggest not giving up hope quite yet.

[0] https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-lldb-telemetry-metrics/6458...

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/issues/341

[2] https://nextjs.org/telemetry

Rust (Specifically Rust Up) seems to have planned to include telemetry but they paused and cancelled the decision, possibly after implementing it initially.

https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/issues/341 and rust installation uses telemetry