Gotcha. To be honest, this description sounds like what constexpr is in C++ as well, and various `const` things in Rust. I thought you were saying that the feature doesn't work, but it sounds more like you don't like how the feature was designed. Thank you for letting me know!
Well, its broken in the sense that one part of the standard describes some functionality, and then an other part of the standard, says "Oh you can ignore that."
