Why is `const fn` different from other “const” things?

• const-eval

  6 99 3.8 CSS

  home for proposals in and around compile-time function evaluation

  

See also the const-eval project

• rfcs

  666 5,685 9.7 Markdown

  RFCs for changes to Rust

  

Those 2010 slides also don't mention C++ except in the context of safety, or const fn/compile time evaluation at all- the const fn RFC wasn't written until 2015, and the RFC itself doesn't mention C++ either. Rather, the motivation was const-context initialization using APIs that were also necessarily used at runtime.

• InfluxDB

  www.influxdata.com sponsored

  Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.

  

• maud

  29 1,920 6.4 Rust

  :pencil: Compile-time HTML templates for Rust

It's like comparing Maud to a sequence of write! calls embedded in arbitrary code. Yes, the write!-based solution is more versatile, but the declarative solution has more power to verify invariants hold at compile time.

• bad_actor_poc

  12 322 0.0 Rust

I'm not suggesting people in this thread are wrong, but working for a security company gives a slightly different perspective. For example, there's really nothing stopping a rogue crate from exporting your private keys, just by using VS code. I wasn't thinking about this when I helped write that proposal, though.

Suggest a related project