Stabilise inline_const by nbdd0121 · Pull Request #104087 · rust-lang/rust
github.com
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...
  • kevincox@lemmy.ml
    0·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • 0v0@sopuli.xyz
      0·
      7 months ago

      It’s because it has to work in pattern contexts as well, which are not expressions.

        • 0v0@sopuli.xyz
          1·
          7 months ago
          fn foo(x: i32) {
    match x {
        const { 3.pow(3) } => println!("three cubed"),
        _ => {}
    }
}

          But it looks like inline_const_pat is still unstable, only inline_const in expression position is now stabilized.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    11·
    7 months ago

    Huh, this is awesome! From the link, this now works:

    let v: Vec<i32> = const { Vec::new() };

    I’m going to have to play with this to see how far it goes.

    • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
      2·
      6 months ago

      What I’m curious about - this function was already const, so for stuff like this, I’d think there’s basically a 100% chance the compiler would optimize this too, just implicitly.

      AFAIK this new feature is just for times when it isn’t an optimization, but more your own domain invariants. E.g. assertions.

      But I could be wrong. I wonder if this can be used for actual optimizations in some places that the compiler couldn’t figure out by itself.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        6 months ago

        Ah, apparently for now you’re not allowed to allocate. But vec::new_in(allocator) looks interesting. This works in nightly today:

        #![feature(allocator_api)]

use std::alloc::Global;

fn main() {
    const MY_VEC: Vec<i32> = const {
        Vec::new_in(Global)
    };
    println!("{:?}", MY_VEC);
}

        Maybe at some point I can append to it at compile time too. I’d love to be able to put a const {} and have allocations that resolve down to a 'static, and this seems to be a step toward that.

        I guess I’m just excited that Vec::new() is the example they picked, since the next obvious question is, “can I push?”

  • onlinepersona@programming.devEnglish
    02·
    6 months ago

    I’m not getting it. What’s the point? It seems very much like a cpp-ism where you can put const in so many places.

    const int n2 = 0;    // const object
int const n3 = 0;    // const object (same as n2)
// https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/const-and-volatile-pointers?view=msvc-170
const char *cpch;  // const variable cannot point to another pointer
char * const pchc; // value of pointer is constant

int f() const; // members cannot be modified in this, only read
std::string const f(); // returns a constant

    Then there are constant expressions.

    Can anybody look at that and tell me it’s readable with a straight face? I hope they don’t start adding all this stuff to rust.

    Anti Commercial-AI license

    • Miaou@jlai.lu
      3·
      6 months ago

      It can be used for producing const values in arbitrary context. Can basically be swapped for c++'s constexpr.

      C++'s const does not exist in rust (values are const by default).

    • Alex@programming.dev
      2·
      6 months ago

      Nope. This little neat feature mainly is just necessary part of bigger one - const-generics with const bounds.