Stabilisation Report
Summary
This PR will stabilise inline_const feature in expression position. inline_const_pat is still unstable and will not be stabilised.
The feature will allow code like this...
Because const FOO: () is an item, thus it is only lexically scoped (i.e. visible) inside require_zst, but does not inherit its generics (thus it cannot use T).
This is a nice small feature. I’m curious about the commit description:
foo(const { 1 + 1 })
which is roughly desugared into
struct Foo; impl Foo { const FOO: i32 = 1 + 1; } foo(Foo::FOO)
I would have expected it to desugar to something like:
foo({ const TMP: i32 = 1 + 1; TMP })
But I can’t seem an explanation why the struct with
impl
is used. I wonder if it has something to do with propagating generics.It’s because it has to work in pattern contexts as well, which are not expressions.
Wait, in pattern context? How? Can you give an example?
fn foo(x: i32) { match x { const { 3.pow(3) } => println!("three cubed"), _ => {} } }
But it looks like
inline_const_pat
is still unstable, onlyinline_const
in expression position is now stabilized.The code they were looking at was used for writing the table, but they were testing the one that read it (which is instead correct).
Yeah that’s me :)The translation using an associated const also works when the
const
block uses generic parameters. For example:This can be written as:
However it cannot be written as:
Because
const FOO: ()
is an item, thus it is only lexically scoped (i.e. visible) insiderequire_zst
, but does not inherit its generics (thus it cannot useT
).