On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 10:20 AM Pierre <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That was exactly my point: the type could simply implicitely be the one
> of the original value.
>
>
That works when the initial value is a literal, but what about when it's
another cost?
class Foo {
const BAR = Baz::BAR;
const BLING = MY_QUX;
}
What type are Foo::BAR and Foo::BLING? Suddenly these constants have
dependent type and resolving it becomes less trivial.
Also, what happens when this code is originally written when MY_QUX is a
string, but then gets redefined (because it lives in another library we
don't control).
Allowing the author to put an explicit type removes all that uncertainty.
-Sara
