Miss Dada  🏳️‍⚧️

Do you mean what other languages call the unit type? Or something else?

No. He means omitting the return type of a function and letting the compiler figure that out itself. (I’m not a fan of it.)

Oh god this is embarrassing. I read that as "return type interface" not "inference"

Curious, though. That's one thing I like about Haskell; why are you not a fan?

Unreadable type errors. And I like seeing the types without having to use some tool for it.

That sounds like more of an argument against a poor implementation of return type inference than an argument against return type inference. The type error should be identical to what would be there if you wrote the type explicitly.

Those unreadable errors come up when modifying the body of the function, not using it. So I often end up writing the return type anyway. Also, writing the return type helps me make sure I’m returning the right thing.

> writing the return type helps me ... I think there's an argument to be made here if Rust added the inference, in that your public API should require explicit types, but private functions can support inference