Mi am using Utf8.TryWrite
Khaven't had time 
but good
but good
KKinda sniped by 1. here. I always wanted to have the ability to have ops have the ability to have a storage precision and each op have a specified precision.
Iirc there's lots of gains to have.
Iirc there's lots of gains to have.
KI thought my being busy as hell was over and then nope heck me I guess
Mworst part is having to manually call TryWriteInterpolatedStringHandler because interpolated strings can't natively do what the API needs them to
Kwait really?
Moh yeah: and i have to allocate a
new string(format)Ie (wrong types for clarity)
VectorN.Dot<i8, f8>(a, b)
Pthis stance does fundamentally change the proposal, and as much as i have agreed in the past, given that we have strict rules codified in the BCL now in the form of the generic maths interfaces, it makes sense to follow them given they're the stewards of the ecosystem
M(could rewrite the interpolated string handler, but...)
KWhere a/b are VectorN<i8> and the output is f8
Kalso where is this code i dont see it in the proposal and dont see any other recent links to check
Mbottom of proposal
MGitHub
Contribute to uwx/SilkGenericVectorPoC development by creating an account on GitHub.
KIdk, where does the BCL say Length of an sbyte vector makes no sense?
Kthe method declaration is in the proposal not implementation - ah ok
Mthe proposal already provides that
Mi'll leave it up there, rest is up to the WG
Mdo i have to write the API specification for all like 8 types?
KSorry I haven't looked yet, but from what's said here I gather that it returns float always?
Mno, it returns whatever type you want
Mvec.Length<TFloat>()
Ppoint out the differences between the types, but other than that no.
KTFloat = sbyte?
Ptechnically you don't even have to write the type specs which is something i'm abusing in the SilkTouchX proposal to leave things open for the team to change
Mthat would be a not very useful length method
Mdoes sbyte implement IRootFunctions
Mif not, not possible
KFair, Length squared is totally possible though?
Mi wrote them because you asked!
Mlengthsquared is not constrained
KYes it'll likely overflow and isn't super common, but eh
Mit's just INumber
Poh yeah, and for maths we definitely want them
Pbut you don't need to do one for every type
Plike for a typespec for Vector4 you can do
Pas long as your intent is clear, it can be approved
Mso yes you can do LengthSquared<sbyte>
KDon't want to bother you about it given I haven't read the proposal but then I don't understand what perksey is saying here
Mme neither
Myou monster /j
K@shrimpcat in the utf8 formatting bit, why not also check the output from the .Append bits to return early? unless im misremembering those method's return values
Mthey return false
Mtahts why the &&
Kyeah but why discarding the whole is i guess my question
Kim probably just being slow to process this whole setup though
Mbecause you can't have a bunch of && as a statement
Pif we can implement something in terms of the generic maths interfaces without implementing the functions exposed by any of the generic maths interfaces ourselves (a la Scalar.BaseOps) then i'm happy with it being in Silk.NET.Maths
Mand Utf8.TryWrite checks itself
Mif i added a check there, it would be a duplicate
