type inference for consts/statics
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`.
Posted by nrc on Oct 31, 2015, 12:50 PM
Tags
Related issues
- struct's lifetime requirements can be bypassed via covariant field assignment
- Proposal to Reorganize the Moderation Team and Review Moderation Policies
- Progressive FPS degradation appears to be related to dota2.com — blocking the domain prevents the performance loss
- proposal: container/...: generic collection types
- Better Custom Endpoint BYOK
- A concrete policy for backward compatibility until Godot 5.0
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,000 issues0 comments
github (Other)
struct's lifetime requirements can be bypassed via covariant field assignment
Proposal to Reorganize the Moderation Team and Review Moderation Policies
Progressive FPS degradation appears to be related to dota2.com — blocking the domain prevents the performance loss
proposal: container/...: generic collection types
Better Custom Endpoint BYOK
A concrete policy for backward compatibility until Godot 5.0
New MTP models not supported
Tracking: 429 / Capacity Issues
type inference for consts/statics
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`.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.