Down this path lies C++ constructors and destructors, and likely additional mess. For example, stack allocation of a point - who initializes the members? Etc, etc.
It's probably best not to mess with it, as it's a non-standard extension. My two cents. Skip Tavakkolian <[email protected]> wrote: > if you restricted the typestr to integral types (or composition of > integral types), would there be any garbage collection issues? > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 8:19 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Quoth sirjofri via 9fans <[email protected]>: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I just had a quick thought about using typestr in libgeometry. However, I > > > noticed that typestr is nowhere used in 9front at all (besides the > > > compiler that implements it as a feature). > > > > > > Thinking about how typestr provides pretty cool syntactic sugar, I was > > > wondering why that's the case? Is there a goal to maintain the C standard > > > as far as it makes sense, or is it compatibility between plan 9 systems? > > > > > > Before thinking about it too much, I just ask here. > > > > > > I personally only use it in some cases where it makes sense, in cases > > > similar to the complex number example I was able to find online[1]. I > > > don't think it should be used to hide things, just to provide the ability > > > to write code that's easier to read and understand. For example, instead > > > of combining matrices using functions, I could just type S * R * S, or to > > > add vectors, I can just V + W. For plan 9, adding Points would be trivial. > > > > > > Note that I'm _not_ proposing to update all of the routines to use this > > > feature. I'd just like to know your thoughts about using it (or not using > > > it). > > > > > > sirjofri > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/henesy/plan9-typestr/blob/master/typestr.md > > > > > > > It's a subtly wrong feature -- it looks cute, but doesn't > > generalize well in C. Finishing it would imply garbage > > collection (or at least destructors), which have their > > own disadvantages. > > > > It may work for some things. This, for example, is fine: > > > > typestr mpint ...; > > > > mpint *x = mpnew(42); > > mpint *y = mpnew(123); > > mpint *z = x * y; //ok, fine > > mpfree(x); > > mpfree(y); > > > > but what about: > > > > mpint *x = mpnew(42); > > mpint *y = mpnew(123); > > mpint *z = x * (y - x) * (y - x); > > mpfree(x); > > mpfree(y); > > > > There are intermediate expressions along the way > > which would need to be allocated; who frees them? > > ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T7ee24291af957db7-M475a63249e2f414db20473bd Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
