With this style, you do not really need the following types: absvtype struct_foo_ptr(l:addr) = ptr l absvtype struct_bar_ptr(l:addr) = ptr l
If an at-view T@l for a pointer ptr(l) can be found, the system assumes that the pointer is not NULL. You may use a run-time check to solve this issue (or use optional views). My concern with this style is that it is still very verbose in practice. To get something closer to the C style, I think that having abstract types like struct_foo_ptr and struct_bar_ptr is a better way to go. On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:44:44 AM UTC-4, Kiwamu Okabe wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Kiwamu Okabe <...> wrote: > > * Easily support double pointer struct member such like `struct foo > **p;`. > > I tried to write that as following: > > > https://github.com/jats-ug/practice-ats/blob/a3cfedca36459d7fb5b26ddfbba62de237900902/mutual_struct2/gen.sats > > > https://github.com/jats-ug/practice-ats/blob/a3cfedca36459d7fb5b26ddfbba62de237900902/mutual_struct2/main.dats > > > However, I have a question. It can dereference pointer without > checking that it doesn't equal NULL: > > > https://github.com/jats-ug/practice-ats/blob/a3cfedca36459d7fb5b26ddfbba62de237900902/mutual_struct2/main.dats#L23 > > > ``` > val () = if !pbarptr > 0 then print_bar (pfbar | !pbarptr) // Why need > no checking `pbarptr > 0`? > ``` > > I think `pbarptr` should depends on `{l:agz}`, not `{l:addr}`. Isn't it? > > Best regards, > -- > Kiwamu Okabe at METASEPI DESIGN > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ats-lang-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ats-lang-users. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ats-lang-users/843b39cf-39ca-4fab-8caa-6e9ff8478152%40googlegroups.com.
