3 ms·
> "owned" and "borrowed" > java 1.4's You're getting into pedantics about specific languages and their implementation. I never made a statement about C++ or ja
by aDyslecticCrow 9mo ago
> "owned" and "borrowed"
> java 1.4's
You're getting into pedantics about specific languages and their implementation. I never made a statement about C++ or java. I work in primarily in c99 myself.
> the utility of making them implicit is close to nil.
> Without relying on interfaces or inheritance.
Implement a function that takes three strings without 3! permutations of that function either explicitly or implicitly created.
- masklinn 9mo ago> You're getting into pedantics about specific languages No, I'm using terms which clearly express what I'm talking about, and referring to actual historical experience with these concerns. > Implement a function that takes three strings without 3! permutations of that function either explicitly or implicitly created. In the overwhelming majority of cases this is a nonsensical requirement, if the function can take 3 borrowed strings you just implement a single function which takes 3 borrowed strings. In the (rare) situation where optimising for maybe-owned makes sense, you use a wrapper type over "owned or borrowed". Which still needs no "interface or inheritance".