HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · edit-213 days agoWhy make it complicated?lemmy.mlimagemessage-square107fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10file-textcross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11arrow-down1imageWhy make it complicated?lemmy.mlHiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · edit-213 days agomessage-square107fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareanton@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up0·12 days agoAt least be fair and cut out the .into()
minus-squarenebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·12 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-up0·6 days agoIf type constraints later in the function let the compiler infer the type, this syntax totally works.
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.