3 ms·

Why do you say C has no type safety? Only way around the type system is void, explicit casts and I guess unions. It admittedly doesn't have a very advanced typ

• munificent 13y ago
  > Only way around the type system is void, explicit casts and I guess unions. And typedefs. Given that there's no parametric types, you run into void* quite frequently as well, so saying "only" inaccurately minimizes the scale of how much C code isn't strictly type safe.
  • bluetech 13y ago
    Right, void* is used quite a lot for "generic" data structures. But I'm not sure that's what he meant. The reason I said "only" was that from my own experience, most C data structures are tailored for a specific use and so I don't see void* too much in this context. And may I ask why you say "typedef" is unsafe? It is merely a type alias, like e.g. Haskell's and ML's "type", or isn't it?
    • munificent 13y ago
      > It is merely a type alias, like e.g. Haskell's and ML's "type", or isn't it? It is, but it freely allows conversion between the aliased types. typedef int Feet; typedef int Meters; int main() { Feet height = 6; Meters inEngland = height; // <-- OK. :( }
      • anaphor 13y ago
        I'm pretty sure you and the parent were thinking of Haskell's `newtype` not `type` λ> :{ Prelude| type Feet = Int Prelude| type Metres = Int Prelude| :} λ> let a = 5 :: Feet λ> let b = 4 :: Metres λ> :t a a :: Feet λ> :t b b :: Metres λ> a + b 9 λ> let f = id :: Feet -> Feet λ> f b 4