HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · edit-27 days agoWhy make it complicated?lemmy.mlimagemessage-square122fedilinkarrow-up1369arrow-down139file-textcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1330arrow-down1imageWhy make it complicated?lemmy.mlHiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · edit-27 days agomessage-square122fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squareanton@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up4·6 days agoAt least be fair and cut out the .into()
minus-squarenebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·6 days agoAnd bow to the compiler’s whims? I think not! This shouldn’t compile, because .into needs the type from the left side and let needs the type from the right side.
minus-squareHaradion@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up2·6 hours agoIf type constraints later in the function let the compiler infer the type, this syntax totally works.
minus-squarenebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 hours agoLike if the variable is then used in a function that only takes one type? Huh.
At least be fair and cut out the
.into()And bow to the compiler’s whims? I think not!
This shouldn’t compile, because .into needs the type from the left side and let needs the type from the right side.
If type constraints later in the function let the compiler infer the type, this syntax totally works.
Like if the variable is then used in a function that only takes one type? Huh.