HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 10 months agoWhy make it complicated?lemmy.mlimagemessage-square14linkfedilinkarrow-up10arrow-down10file-textcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
arrow-up10arrow-down1imageWhy make it complicated?lemmy.mlHiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 10 months agomessage-square14linkfedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
minus-squarecalcopiritus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·10 months agoIt’s also valid rust syntax. But if it were rust, this meme would not make sense, since you would just type let a and type inference would do its thing. Which is much more ergonomic.
minus-squarenebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·10 months agolet a = String::from(“Hello, world!”).into() I’ll see myself out.
minus-squareanton@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up0·10 months agoAt least be fair and cut out the .into()
minus-squarenebeker@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·10 months 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-up1·10 months agoIf type constraints later in the function let the compiler infer the type, this syntax totally works.
It’s also valid rust syntax.
But if it were rust, this meme would not make sense, since you would just type
let aand type inference would do its thing. Which is much more ergonomic.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.