Oli Scherer

@eddyb threw `artifact` into the bikeshed hat. So maybe something like ```rust #[emit_artifact = "foo.man"] const _: &[u8] = b"foomp"; ```

That's fine, even on nightly: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2015&gist=a9a11a688079f6535f8e7e548cdbcd3a Const eval will error out if you leak a local and you can't promote a mutable reference to something other than `[]`

we are in `rust-rfcs`!? :rofl: > the only legal way for it to refer to something mutable is to reference another static, right? Not from within another static/const. If an...

```rust struct Foo { x: usize, f: const fn(T) -> T, } const fn twice(arg: T, fun: Foo) -> T { fun.f(fun.f(arg)) // OK. We know that `fun` respects the...

> This should be allowed, we said const fn explicitly after all! So when using `Bar` in a const fn, the field always needs to be const fn, even if...

That kind of constness adding would then add constness to all function pointers inside the struct, even if that is not necessary due to only one of them being called...

Sgtm. I am for the simple version, since it covers the real use cases I can think of. artificial examples are easy to come up with but rarely useful in...

Yes that's the current behaviour. OK, let's keep it. it's way saner, even if less fun

Hmm... this looks to me like a failure to find your webcam. I'm not sure I can debug this, since my hardware works.

oh. I hardcoded a fps in the examples? Yea we should fix that. I don't remember how to extract the fps and don't have time right now to really dig...