type inference for consts/statics
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Markdown
- Stars
- 6.6k
- Forks
- 1.7k
- Avg merge
- 16h 14m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
We shouldn't require types for consts and statics unless necessary. const FOO = "foo"; or static bar = 42; should just work. I propose that we try to infer based only on the RHS, i.e., we do not look at uses of consts/statics. Type error if we can't infer based on that. Although this would break the rule that items must be fully annotated, it would make static/const more consistent with let.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No files, tests, or entry points are named. Read the 38-comment thread and the repository's RFC process first; a completed proposal would resolve whether consts and statics may infer types from their RHS and define the behavior when inference fails.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100