You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In discussion of rust-lang/libs-team#325 (a proposal for a compile-time assert macro), the idea came up to allow const {} blocks at item level, and then have people use const { assert!(...) }.
@rust-lang/libs-api would like some guidance from @rust-lang/lang about whether lang is open to toplevel const { ... } blocks like this, which would influence whether we want to add a compile-time assert macro, as well as what we want to call it (e.g. static_assert! vs const_assert! vs some other name).
Filing this issue to discuss in a lang meeting. This issue is not seeking any hard commitment to add such a construct, just doing a temperature check.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
To ensure that it's noted: if both item and expression const blocks are valid in the same position (i.e. in statement position), a rule to disambiguate would be needed (like for statement versus expression if-else). IMO it would be quite unfortunate for item-level const blocks to be evaluated pre-mono if that same const block but statement-level would be evaluated post-mono.
Additionally: since const { assert!(...) } is post-mono (due to using the generic context), it's potentially desirable to push people towards using const _: () = assert!(...); (which is pre-mono) whenever possible (not capturing generics).
In discussion of rust-lang/libs-team#325 (a proposal for a compile-time assert macro), the idea came up to allow
const {}
blocks at item level, and then have people useconst { assert!(...) }
.@rust-lang/libs-api would like some guidance from @rust-lang/lang about whether lang is open to toplevel
const { ... }
blocks like this, which would influence whether we want to add a compile-time assert macro, as well as what we want to call it (e.g.static_assert!
vsconst_assert!
vs some other name).Filing this issue to discuss in a lang meeting. This issue is not seeking any hard commitment to add such a construct, just doing a temperature check.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: