3 ms·

Please don't spread misinformation. Zig does not have implicit null. Also depending on how you define "dependent types" - there are a few competing definitions

Please don't spread misinformation. Zig does not have implicit null. Also depending on how you define "dependent types" - there are a few competing definitions - Zig has them.

bjz_ 8y ago
Oh, I must be mistaken then. So pointers are guaranteed not to be null? Can I mark pointers as nullable, and be forced to explicitly check? Although there are differing ways to define dependent types, and they come in different varieties (dependent functions, dependent pairs/structs, very dependent types, dependent intersections, inductive types), they are all founded on a foundation of type theory. I guess if you want me to clarify, it is 'dependent types based on a well understood foundation from type theory'. --- Edit: seems like Zig does have optional types! That is a good thing! https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Optionals https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Optionals
vmchale 8y ago
> Also depending on how you define "dependent types" - there are a few competing definitions - Zig has them. How is it ambiguous? Dependent type systems/algorithms can be weaker than desired, but there's no way you can say Zig has dependent types.
- stateoff 8y ago
  I think Andy refers to this [1]. For example you can do: const std = @import("std"); fn Int(comptime value: i32) type { return struct { pub fn value() i32 { return value; } }; } pub fn main() anyerror!void { const int3 = Int(3); const int4 = Int(4); std.debug.warn("Types: {} {}\n", @typeName(int3), @typeName(int4)); std.debug.warn("Sum: {}\n", int3.value() + int4.value()); } Output being: Types: Int(3) Int(4) Sum: 7 Edit: The compiler does the right thing: [2] https://godbolt.org/z/eLWeU2 https://godbolt.org/z/eLWeU2 [1] https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Generic-Data-Structures https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Generic-Data-Struc...

Please don't spread misinformation. Zig does not have implicit null. Also depending on how you define "dependent types" - there are a few competing definitions - Zig has them.

bjz_ 8y ago

Oh, I must be mistaken then. So pointers are guaranteed not to be null? Can I mark pointers as nullable, and be forced to explicitly check? Although there are differing ways to define dependent types, and they come in different varieties (dependent functions, dependent pairs/structs, very dependent types, dependent intersections, inductive types), they are all founded on a foundation of type theory. I guess if you want me to clarify, it is 'dependent types based on a well understood foundation from type theory'. --- Edit: seems like Zig does have optional types! That is a good thing! https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Optionals https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Optionals

vmchale 8y ago

> Also depending on how you define "dependent types" - there are a few competing definitions - Zig has them. How is it ambiguous? Dependent type systems/algorithms can be weaker than desired, but there's no way you can say Zig has dependent types.

stateoff 8y ago
I think Andy refers to this [1]. For example you can do: const std = @import("std"); fn Int(comptime value: i32) type { return struct { pub fn value() i32 { return value; } }; } pub fn main() anyerror!void { const int3 = Int(3); const int4 = Int(4); std.debug.warn("Types: {} {}\n", @typeName(int3), @typeName(int4)); std.debug.warn("Sum: {}\n", int3.value() + int4.value()); } Output being: Types: Int(3) Int(4) Sum: 7 Edit: The compiler does the right thing: [2] https://godbolt.org/z/eLWeU2 https://godbolt.org/z/eLWeU2 [1] https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Generic-Data-Structures https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Generic-Data-Struc...