On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:44 AM, David Jeske <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is shap's complaint, as there is nothing "unsafe" about using a > fixed-size array. As long as it's only for structs (with no subtyping) and > the size is known at compile-time... > If we really want to get picky, it's not at all hard to imagine using a dependent type in which a read-only field holds the length and a later block of data makes reference to that field to describe its length. This is perfectly type safe. The use case would be network packet data structures. But that goes way beyond any type that CLR can describe.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
