Re: [PATCH v3 08/13] rust: init: add `stack_pin_init!` macro

[Alice Ryhl]

On 3/30/23 00:33, y86-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Benno Lossin <y86-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The `stack_pin_init!` macro allows pin-initializing a value on the
> stack. It accepts a `impl PinInit<T, E>` to initialize a `T`. It allows
> propagating any errors via `?` or handling it normally via `match`.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benno Lossin <y86-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@xxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
> +#[macro_export]
> +macro_rules! stack_pin_init {
> +    (let $var:ident $(: $t:ty)? = $val:expr) => {
> +        let mut $var = $crate::init::__internal::StackInit$(::<$t>)?::uninit();
> +        let mut $var = {
> +            let val = $val;
> +            unsafe { $crate::init::__internal::StackInit::init(&mut $var, val) }
> +        };
> +    };
> +    (let $var:ident $(: $t:ty)? =? $val:expr) => {
> +        let mut $var = $crate::init::__internal::StackInit$(::<$t>)?::uninit();
> +        let mut $var = {
> +            let val = $val;
> +            unsafe { $crate::init::__internal::StackInit::init(&mut $var, val)? }
> +        };
> +    };
> +}

This will be inconvenient to use if the initializer is infallible and is 
used inside an infallible function. However, I'm not sure what a better 
alternative would be. Perhaps we should have three variants?

Also, maybe a `<-` rather than `=` would be more consistent?

Anyway, I don't think this should block the PR. We can revisit it later 
if it becomes a problem.