[wgsl-in] Implement phony assignment #1866
Conversation
|
What if the spec changed to keep up with how rust handle phony assignment? |
| let unnamed_110 = (2 != 1); | ||
| let unnamed_111 = (2u != 1u); | ||
| let unnamed_112 = (2.0 != 1.0); | ||
| let unnamed_113 = (vec2<i32>(2) != vec2<i32>(1)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we know how many times a particular expression is used. So we could just generate _ = xxx if it's not used, and the name isn't specified
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm now thinking a new kind of statement for phony assignment might be better (i.e. Phony(Handle<Expression>)) since using named_expressions with _ feels like a hack. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not supposed to be a named expression at all. It's just an expression that is emitted at a particular point.
I don't think this warrants an IR change, we shouldn't be introducing a new statement type.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Opened #1869 to address this.
|
@stshine the first time I used search and replace to replace |
|
@teoxoy Oh that's something TIL |
fixes #1842