Allow blocks in constants

active/0000-const-block-expr.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+- Start Date: 2014-05-07
+- RFC PR #: (leave this empty)
+- Rust Issue #: (leave this empty)
+
+# Summary
+
+Allow block expressions in statics, as long as they only contain items
+and a trailing const expression.
+
+Example:
+
+```rust
+static FOO: uint = { 100 };
+static BAR: fn() -> int = {
+    fn hidden() -> int {
+        42
+    }
+    hidden
+};
+```
+
+# Motivation
+
+This change allows defining items as part of a const expression,
+and evaluating to a value using them.
+This is mainly useful for macros, as it allows hiding complex machinery behind something
+that expands to a value, but also enables using `unsafe {}` blocks in a static initializer.
+
+Real life examples include the `regex!` macro, which currently expands to a block containing a
+function definition and a value, and would be usable in a static with this.
+
+Another example would be to expose a static reference to a fixed memory address by
+dereferencing a raw pointer in a const expr, which is useful in
+embedded and kernel, but requires a `unsafe` block to do.
+
+The outcome of this is that one additional expression type becomes valid as a const
+expression, with semantics that are a strict subset of its equivalent in a function.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+Block expressions in a function are usually just used to run arbitrary code before
+evaluating to a value. Allowing them in statics without allowing code
+execution might be confusing.
+
+# Detailed design
+
+A branch implementing this feature can be found at
+https://github.com/Kimundi/rust/tree/const_block.
+
+It mainly involves the following changes:
+
+- const check now allows block expressions in statics:
+  - All statements that are not item declarations lead to an compile error.
+- trans and const eval are made aware of block expressions:
+  - A trailing expression gets evaluated as a constant.
+  - A missing trailing expressions is treated as a unit value.
+- trans is made to recurse into static expressions to generate possible items.
+
+Things like privacy/reachability of definitions inside a static block
+are already handled more generally at other places, as the situation is
+very similar to a regular function.
+
+The branch also includes tests that show how this feature works in practice.
+
+# Alternatives
+
+Because this feature is a straight forward extension of the valid const expressions,
+it already causes a very minimal impact on the language, with most alternative ways
+of enabling the same benefits being more complex.
+
+For example, a expression AST node that can include items but is only usable from procedural macros
+could be added.
+
+Not having this feature would not prevent anything interesting from getting implemented,
+but it would lead to less nice looking solutions.
+
+For example, a comparison between static-supporting `regex!` with and without this feature:
+
+```rust
+// With this feature, you can just initialize a static:
+static R: Regex = regex!("[0-9]");
+
+// Without it, the static needs to be generated by the
+// macro itself, alongside all generated items:
+regex! {
+    static R = "[0-9]";
+}
+```
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+None so far.