lobsters score: 1 · tags: rust
The explanation why the macro is necessary seems tautological - certain syntax won’t work without the macro or macro-equivalent sugar, because it requires the macro. But why!?
I presume the macro has been invented as a hack to prototype the feature, and now the implementation is stuck with it, but what’s the theoretical type system problem that prevents a clean hack-less implementation?
And why isn’t existing
{}orconst {}sufficient? I thought this syntax has been reserved for const-evaluated values in types.
score 1 · canonical
My interpretation is that invoking the GCA machinery when it’s not necessary will cause regressions at this stage, but mechanically detecting whether it’s necessary isn’t easy.
score 1 · canonical
I think it’s not “…because it requires the macro” but “…because it requires all the backend code the macro invokes, but it’s nontrivial to decide whether to invoke it automatically or not”
score 1 · canonical