What do Zig "generics"/"comptime" errors look like ? > One of the key differences between zig and rust is that when writing a generic function, rust will prove

What do Zig "generics"/"comptime" errors look like ? > One of the key differences between zig and rust is that when writing a generic function, rust will prove that the function is type-safe for every possible value of the generic parameters. Zig will prove that the function is type-safe only for each parameter that you actually call the function with. On the one hand, this allows zig to make use of arbitrary compile-time logic [...] This is fundamentally identical to how C++ templates, constexpr and concepts work. Its a really flexible system (you can implement how you want to type check things using constexpr), but has three cons that Rust system does not have: - can't typecheck library APIs, so library authors aren't sure if their "constraints" are correct. Testing this requires writing lots and lots of compile-time tests. - errors deep inside a library implementation when user code passes incorrect arguments to generic APIs. - rust traits can be used for static dispatch, or boxed and used for dynamic dispatch, C++ at least can't really do this well. It would be cool if someone could explain how Zig fixes or improves upon these problems that this system has in C++. C++ tried to fix this with concepts, but failed. This was a nice read that has motivated me to learn Zig. I want to know how Zig improves on these C++ issues.