also there's no string operators, but i can do that if you haven't got a lot of time
also there's no string operators, but i can do that if you haven't got a lot of time
Cby string operators do you mean the string conversions?
Pyeah
CThe base explicit conversion is there for the 1 dimensional variants, fully defined for the non-generic. For the generic, I just need to do the extension methods to let it call the correct functions assuming it is the correct types. Are you expecting anything for higher dimensions, or are we just worried about 1D case?
PConstPtr2D supported string arrays as well, and was just about as complicated as the jagged array stuff
Pi think generally the best route once the generation is working it to try and replace the original manual types, and see what's missing.
CAlso for your second comment, about the object equality, it is because we only really care about the case of an object being null, since the more specific overrides will take over if we are talking about other types we care about. I can use the !rh.Equals(lh) in place of true and make sure equals uses base.equals as its final, but in the end it should always turn out to be true anyways.
Pwhat if you have a boxed raw pointer
Kis boxing pointers even legal in c#?
Mlaws are made to be broken
Ano
Klmao
Pah apparently not
Aalthough you could in theory just use a nuint which iirc can be boxed
Phrnrfnubefuywebfyuewb you are right
Pbut
Pas the kids say
P"ratio"
Mwhat is this boxing shit about can you guys elaborate so i tell you exactly why not to care
Pa box is a value type passed around as an
objectMyeah i know that
Mi mean why is it relevant here
Kthe
== operators in the prototype that take object? only check for nullPwe have an
object? operator, which fine i guess it wasn't part of the original proposal but i see no harmPactually yeah that operator is never going to get called because it's already impossible to compare a ptr to be
nullso that'll check a null object but not a null pointer wrapped in an object
Pthat's why
nullptr existsMthis seems like intended behavior, no need to special case nint/nuint
Ma nuint is not necessarily a pointer
Mit is simply
Ma native sized integer
Pyeah unless we're adding nint and nuint operators, which aren't in the proposal atm, there's no boxed thing we could possibly compare against
Pa developer would have to explicitly write
if (ptr == (object?)null) to make the compiler happyPwhich is much more work than writing
if (ptr == nullptr)Pwe have multiple operators that take objects e.g. arrays
Moh right
Myeah fair
Pthe compiler won't be able to resolve which you're triyng to pass
nullbetter idea
Mimplicit cast to bool
Mif (ptr)
Munity does it
Pnot a bad idea
PC does it as well technically
Cyep, you are right, and I knew that because we talked about the nullptr thing already
MC doesn't have booleans, exit your mind from such high level concepts
Meverything is an integer
Pyeah i KNOW maxine
Mstruct? lots of integers
MIT'S ALL INTEGERS PERKSEY