Skip to content

Use const fn consistently before ?const fn is introduced #1086

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 26, 2023
Merged

Use const fn consistently before ?const fn is introduced #1086

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions posts/inside-rust/2023-02-23-keyword-generics-progress-report-feb-2023.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ trait ?const ?async Read {
}

/// Read from a reader into a string.
?const ?async fn read_to_string(reader: &mut impl ?const ?async Read) -> io::Result<String> {
const ?async fn read_to_string(reader: &mut impl ?const ?async Read) -> io::Result<String> {
let mut string = String::new();
reader.read_to_string(&mut string).await?;
Ok(string)
Expand All @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ trait ?const ?async Read {

That's sure starting to feel like a lot of keywords, right? We've accurately
described exactly what's going on, but there's a lot of repetition. We know that
if we're dealing with a `?const ?async fn`, most arguments probably will also
if we're dealing with a `const ?async fn`, most arguments probably will
want to be `?const ?async`. But under the syntax rules we've proposed so far,
you'd end up repeating that everywhere. And it probably gets worse once we start
adding in more keywords. Not ideal!
Expand Down