HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · edit-210 days agoWhy make it complicated?lemmy.mlexternal-linkmessage-square122fedilinkarrow-up1354arrow-down138file-text
arrow-up1316arrow-down1external-linkWhy make it complicated?lemmy.mlHiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · edit-210 days agomessage-square122fedilinkfile-text
minus-squarenebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·10 days agolet a = String::from(“Hello, world!”).into() I’ll see myself out.
minus-squareanton@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up4·9 days agoAt least be fair and cut out the .into()
minus-squarenebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·9 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-up2·3 days agoIf type constraints later in the function let the compiler infer the type, this syntax totally works.
minus-squarenebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·3 days agoLike if the variable is then used in a function that only takes one type? Huh.
let a = String::from(“Hello, world!”).into()I’ll see myself out.
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.