After years perhaps this will see the light (destructuring assignment):
Related, sometimes I'd like to write:
const (A, B): (u32, u32) = (10, 20);
This is handy because sometimes I have compile-time (const) functions that return a tuple.
7 Likes
I think that all forms forms of destructuring should be allowed in a const scenario, as I don’t think there are any technical limitations to it and it seems orthogonal to how let statements work. Doesn’t seem particularly controversial.
8 Likes
By the way, what is the reason why const items allow writing _ instead of an identifier, but not static variables? Does it have something to do with statics never getting dropped?
Maybe because a plain _ doesn't bind anything? And the whole point of static is to have something bound for the rest of the program?
2 Likes
Probably because nobody needs it. const _ can be useful to make compile time assertion that don't need to be accessed. But I can't figure out any practical use of inaccessible static.
1 Like
But then how will everyone implement their fill-up-the-entire-memory-with-.rodata attacks in Rust? /s
const _: () = {
static __: <type> = <value>;
};
6 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.