Probe const_fn

[matklad]

It would be sweet if it was possible to check not only if a certain path exists, but if it points to a const function. This looks like a significantly more involved check that those currently implemented, so perhaps it should exist just a recipe in the docs? See for an example: /~https://github.com/seanmonstar/unicase/pull/40/files/889d4761a67f7f61f950e98ab7f8ad5a60001039..39542760d0340195e4c5f14ed914d6ef1a3ca0f6#diff-a7b0a2dee0126cddf994326e705a91eaR12

[cuviper]

I had a couple new methods in mind:

    /// Tests whether the given expression can be used. The type may be `_` to let it be inferred
    /// by the compiler, or even partially inferred like `Result<Vec<_>, _>`.
    ///
    /// The test code is subject to change, but currently looks like:
    ///
    /// ```ignore
    /// pub fn probe() { let _: TYPE = EXPR; }
    /// ```
    pub fn probe_expression(&self, type_: &str, expr: &str) -> bool {
        self.probe(format_args!("pub fn probe() {{ let _: {} = {}; }}", type_, expr))
    }

    /// Tests whether the given constant can be used.
    ///
    /// The test code is subject to change, but currently looks like:
    ///
    /// ```ignore
    /// pub const PROBE: TYPE = INIT;
    /// ```
    pub fn probe_constant(&self, type_: &str, init: &str) -> bool {
        self.probe(format_args!("pub const PROBE: {} = {};", type_, init))
    }

What do you think?

[matklad]

Seems fine to add!

Not sure if type is really necessary though, you can use {{ {}; }} Template to just always force it to unit.

If the user really needs type, they can write the let in block themselves

[cuviper]

In part, I was thinking about avoiding the must_use lint. Otherwise I think your suggestion would be fine for probe_expression, but statements weren't supported at all in constants until rust-lang/rust#57175 -- Rust 1.33.

I think tuples work though, even back to Rust 1.0, something like ((), EXPR).0.