I mean that's what TerraFX does, provide 100% unsafe raw methods
I mean that's what TerraFX does, provide 100% unsafe raw methods
Apersonally the main reason I use C# is because I hate C++ headers and rust sucks for gamedev
that is literally the only reason
my opinion of C# as a language has gone way down the drain, I wish I did not have to use it
however that's not to say it doesn't have its merits, and clean and understandable code is one major benefit of the language, no need for unsafe, no need for weird types, just give something an array and it works
that is literally the only reason
my opinion of C# as a language has gone way down the drain, I wish I did not have to use it
however that's not to say it doesn't have its merits, and clean and understandable code is one major benefit of the language, no need for unsafe, no need for weird types, just give something an array and it works
Mi meant the opposite, 100% safe methods
KNo
Kno one can do 100% safe methods
M90% safe
Mno pointers
Ksure, but we have been able to do that for a long time
Kthe problem is more what to do in those edge cases
Mso what is silk adding to the table if we go back to working on that principle
Kwhat if some things are a ptr and some things are a safe array
KIdeally you can use a
int*[] no problem
KI get this a lot, but then I'm not sure what your problem with the idea of wrapped pointers are?
Kno need for unsafe, no need for weird types, just give something an array and it worksis exactly what we try to enable here
VDeleted User#0000
we can't abolish any of those parameters, and can't really choose which ones are the right ones
Original Message
Quoted by perksey#0000
Pthis is really what it boils down to
Kyeah, and in cases like
f(int***, void**, uint**, res*, float**)like which ones are the right overloads to have here
Ai don't see why it's something that couldn't be returned to, just because it was in 1.0?
i'm not dismissing this
now having documentation is fine, but personally if I were coming from say C++ opengl, I should not have to read documentation to be able to use it in C#, I should just be able to give it an array of data like normal and it just works
the intellisense says it is an array, I can see that it is an array, I give it array data, and it just works, no questions or errors or warnings asked by the compiler
sure there's faster options available, but it just works
for me, that is the advantage of C#
stuff just works, the intellisense makes it obvious what it does, no need to mess around reading documentation, you just give stuff data and off it goes.. then it doesn't work because you gave it the wrong offset but we don't talk about that
i'm not dismissing this
Ptr<T>unsafe, but I don't think it should be the norm for the end user, and I don't think that a custom type is the right way to do things - simply because to an end user, it is a type they may have never seen before, and may be confusing to use, to the point where one may have to read documentation to find out how to use itnow having documentation is fine, but personally if I were coming from say C++ opengl, I should not have to read documentation to be able to use it in C#, I should just be able to give it an array of data like normal and it just works
the intellisense says it is an array, I can see that it is an array, I give it array data, and it just works, no questions or errors or warnings asked by the compiler
sure there's faster options available, but it just works
for me, that is the advantage of C#
stuff just works, the intellisense makes it obvious what it does, no need to mess around reading documentation, you just give stuff data and off it goes.. then it doesn't work because you gave it the wrong offset but we don't talk about that
Kyeah this is great that we talk about this tbh
Kso the concern that we have had a few times when talking about this is that for functions like the one I gave above, it's really unclear to us which overloads to expose
Poh yeah sure, but all i'm saying there's a reason we moved away from the rigid 1.0 structure primarily because we got complaints about the overloads kinda being naff to use
Kand exposing all of them is problematic because then you get no intellisense and maybe your IDE just dies
Kwhich... yeah that's super bad
Pfor sure, this is also why we refused to include overloads in the original 3.0 proposals haha
Kf(int***, void**, uint**, res*, float**)here there is a very good argument that we should support passing
T[]T*f(int**[], void*[], uint*[], res[], float*[])implicit casts to ptr might genuinely be a good alternative to having every permutation of argument as an overload
Mbut also doesn't work for every possible case
Kbut then what about
these seem fine?
f(int*[][], void[][], uint[][], res[], float[][])void*[]these seem fine?
Li feel like this is also an IDE problem
Lintellisense should pick up on implicit casts and give you nice completions
AI'm not familliar with 1.0 so I can only say it from my own thoughts
one way to do it could be to simply stick to the spec, and don't provide any helpers etc
raw pointer overloads just have the exact same signature as the C API
and the safe overloads are similar, just any time there is a
or something along those lines
in this way, you only need 2 or 3 overloads (if you include spans)
one way to do it could be to simply stick to the spec, and don't provide any helpers etc
raw pointer overloads just have the exact same signature as the C API
and the safe overloads are similar, just any time there is a
lengthor something along those lines
in this way, you only need 2 or 3 overloads (if you include spans)
Know we want to pass different versions of this to different args, so you take those 3 permutations I've shown and get 15 overloads (5 * 3 versions = 15) (minus the one void*[] that's not valid = 12 overloads)
KThis is true, but very much not ergonomic. C APIs will most likely not have a length or have a shared length for several of the arguments. It's hard to figure out what's what and even harder to really put this in an API
Lwhile i agree with the "its less visually obvious to newcomers", once you learn the way its structured its a lot better ergonomically, its just teaching people that way, we'd need excellent documentation for this to really be viable
Kand it also doesn't really offer a good solution for passing
int*[][]int*[,]tbh i'm content with having a wrapped overload and an unwrapped overload i.e. if you used only the unwrapped functions, Silk.NET is literally just TerraFX but with pretty names.
Aif it's anything, these are the overloads I provide for creating a buffer in pie
https://github.com/piegfx/Pie/blob/main/src/Pie/GraphicsDevice.cs#L83-L122
they are not perfect and could do with a little refining, but they encompass pretty much everything one may want to do with them
the unsafe overload is there for those who want it, and there are safe options as well
https://github.com/piegfx/Pie/blob/main/src/Pie/GraphicsDevice.cs#L83-L122
they are not perfect and could do with a little refining, but they encompass pretty much everything one may want to do with them
the unsafe overload is there for those who want it, and there are safe options as well
Myeah fuck it why not
Kthis I would prefer personally
Lyeah if your methods have a lot of thing* and you do array overloading you start getting to 3**11 overload territory
Ayeah, that could work quite well
Pmost of our users don't want that though, so we will encounter the education problem still.
Pbut again, my intention is to have a "Silk DSL 101" page that just tells you everything you need to know in using these wrappers
Msilk documentation already isn't any good, it can't get worse
KIt's the same problem Span introduces though. These are advanced APIs, you spent hours digging through docs. Read the 2 lines the intellisense will give you once you hover over the Ptr type
Pagain we literally can't ship 3.0 until we have docs
Pthe Working Group has decided that
Aif you need docs written you know who to ask heh
Mwhat a daunting name
Mthe Working Group