how does a constptr know it's a null terminated string
how does a constptr know it's a null terminated string
Pbut I won't be doing struct stuff for MVP
Kwell in any case your MVP defo has my interest even without struct bits
P
Pit makes an ass out of u and me
Mthat's why i ASKED, DYLAN
Kive been abusing the hell out of pooled arraybuilders internally on my end to cover that case
Pdid you not get my dad joke
Pass out of u and me
Passume
Pass = u + me
Kthats assume not assert smh
Mi did
Pgood
Pdamn i don't have my jacksepticeye gif handy
Mi may be stupid but if you create a constptr of something that is not a string and then compare it to one, what happens
Pgreat question, i have no idea
Kyou gonna stick this mvp up on github somewhere? im interested to see it
Mreading arbitrary memory until the next null byte sounds slightly unsafe
Pit's what the BCL does
Mand also possibly might lead you into an unreadable memory page
Myeah but the BCL knows it's a string because of type safety
Pthe user has a duty of care to only use these when they're expecting a string
Kyeah
Kthis is unsafe stuff for sure
Mis a constptr meant to be a null terminated list
Pno, it's just a pointer to T
Pbut just like in C, a
byte* can be treated as a stringP(and friends)
Kits a
T* that doesnt need the unsafe keyword by the looks of itMbut with lifetime tracking
Pit's a ref struct, so the GC tracks it
Pit is marshalled to a string array to which we take a ref
Mmy only concern is that by doing unsafe operations when you compare a constptr to a string, that might be unexpected behavior
Min C you would use strcmp for this
Mand you know strcmp is unsafe
Mbut you do not know x == y is unsafe
Poh yeah ofc, to my knowledge
Span<T>.operator== does not compare the valuesPso we will follow the same precedent
P== is a reference equalsMso what is assert.that doing in there
Kthese tests arent == comparing the constptr
Kits doing a conversion back to string and then comparing that
Mahhhh
Pthat's just a string comparison
PthingBack is already a stringMis the conversion to string implicit or explicit
Kimplicit rn it looks like
Mshould be explicit, that's how C++ does it
Kid make it explicit personally just because of the unsafe-ty
