4 ms·

Just use Zig?

• pfg_ 2y ago
  This proposal is different than how zig handles generic functions because it only emits one symbol and function body for each function. In zig, genericMax([]i32) would emit seperate code to genericMax([]i16). This proposal has both of those functions backed by the same symbol and machine code but it requires a bunch of extra arguments, virtual function calls, and manualy offsetting indices into arrays. You could use zig to do the same with some effort.
  • pfg_ 2y ago
    fn genericReduceTypeErased( size: usize, total: [*]u8, list: []const u8, reducer: *const fn(total: [*]u8, current: [*]const u8) callconv(.C) void, ) void { for(0..@divExact(list.len, size)) |i| { const itm = &list[i \* size]; reducer(total, @ptrCast(itm)); } } inline fn genericReduce( comptime T: type, total: *T, list: []const T, reducer: *const fn(total: *T, current: *const T) callconv(.C) void, ) void { genericReduceTypeErased( @sizeOf(T), @ptrCast(total), std.mem.sliceAsBytes(list), @ptrCast(reducer) ); } The proposal is basically syntax sugar for making a typed version of the first function in C
• WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago
  Just use D? The point is not to use something else, but to improve what they already use
• samatman 2y ago
  And a lot of people will, but we're not taking C out back of the barn and shooting it. It's here to stay and adding some new features which make it a better language is a good idea. I'm not convinced this specific proposal does that, but that's a separate matter. JenHeyd Meneide has a Technical Specification paper for a defer statement in C, which is visibly based on Zig's version, and I applaud that. https://thephd.dev/just-put-raii-in-c-bro-please-bro-just-one-more-destructor-bro-cmon-im-good-for-it https://thephd.dev/just-put-raii-in-c-bro-please-bro-just-on...