I general I agree, but we are also in the paradoxical situation that generic associated constants in traits are stable, but you can't actually use them as constants. You can't use them as const generics for other types, and you can't use them for array lengths.
I'd argue that this makes them pretty useless: if you just want a value that you can use like any other, then you can define a function that returns it and be done with it. Now we have another way to do it, and in theory it could do more, but that RFC has been stale for several years, nobody seems to be working on it, and I believe it's not even in nightly.
If the support would actually be good, we could just get rid of all the support crates we have in cryptography libraries (like the generic_array and typenum crates).
That said, I agree that the Rust team should be careful about adding features.
> Now we have another way to do it, and in theory it could do more, but that RFC has been stale for several years, nobody seems to be working on it, and I believe it's not even in nightly.
What is this way? I have been fighting with this problem for quite some time recently.
I'd argue that this makes them pretty useless: if you just want a value that you can use like any other, then you can define a function that returns it and be done with it. Now we have another way to do it, and in theory it could do more, but that RFC has been stale for several years, nobody seems to be working on it, and I believe it's not even in nightly.
If the support would actually be good, we could just get rid of all the support crates we have in cryptography libraries (like the generic_array and typenum crates).
That said, I agree that the Rust team should be careful about adding features.