-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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.
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
Allow omitting ‘static in const and static references #406
Comments
Closing in favor of #1623 |
I knew I wasn't the first to suggest this, but somehow your issue elided my search... 👍 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Why are
'static
lifetimes required to be written explicitly inconst
andstatic
references?If I understand the motivation correctly, the types should be written there explicitly for the similar reasons as for function declarations - they represent interfaces and shouldn't change silently after changes to initializer or function body.
But the lifetimes for
const
/static
references are always'static
and will not change, can't they be elided?These explicit
'static
s were relatively annoying before, with constant strings, but now they are even more annoying, because after introduction ofconst
(#398) constant arrays have to be written through references.The same snippets after the change:
The question was asked on discuss forum, but without success.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: