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
objectyeah i know that
Mi mean why is it relevant here
Kthe
==object?we have an
object?actually 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
nullptrthis 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)which 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
Pas much as
stdbooli am slightly concerned that this is becoming too far away from the language's design
remember - most people (myself included) aren't gonna want to learn and use a bunch of custom types that aren't language constructs that do basically the same thing
remember - most people (myself included) aren't gonna want to learn and use a bunch of custom types that aren't language constructs that do basically the same thing
P
Pthen just pretend they're all unmanaged pointers...
Pthe only place where it'll hurt is return typing
Peverywhere else it's basically just designed to be equivalent to what we have in Silk.NET today where you can pass in whatever, just without millions of overloads
Ai'm trying to think from the perspective of a relative newb
where they will be used to arrays or maybe spans
you can teach them what a pointer is and how its worked, but give them
i can certainly say that I stopped being able to wrap my head around the pointer structs as soon as it got beyond
where
where they will be used to arrays or maybe spans
you can teach them what a pointer is and how its worked, but give them
PtrMutPtri can certainly say that I stopped being able to wrap my head around the pointer structs as soon as it got beyond
Ptr<T>where
Ptr<T>yes but you can't do that because it's a ref struct