I guess, interesting feature will be type extensions by the CHICKEN
functors mechanism. And yes, Byte or Octet type is important well in system
programming, but not only Byte
вс, 14 сент. 2025 г., 09:45 Diogo via Chicken-users <
chicken-users@nongnu.org>:
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 06:53:54PM +0200, Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> > On Sat Sep 13, 2025 at 6:32 PM CEST, Diogo wrote:
> > > > CRUNCH's "char" is not a byte, it must hold UNICODE code points,
> which
> > > > may be unexpected. Using typename is the proper way to handle this,
> but
> > > > perhaps we should add a new type ("byte") or make "char" 8 bits and
> > > > add "wchar_t"? I'm open to suggestions.
> > >
> > > Ah yes, that makes a lot of sense. Personally, now that I know, I'd be
> fine
> > > with adding byte for 8bits and keeping char as it is.
> >
> > Ok, I think I'll do that.
>
> Having byte as "native" type would also allow us to use the byte as a
> normal
> integer in procedures/functions:
>
> - in arithmetic and comparisons (+ b 1), (zero? b), (= b1 b2)
> - and as index in things like (bytevector-set! V b b)
>
> I tried these usecases with a self-defined byte type via
>
> (define-type byte (typename uint8_t))
>
> and the compiler wasn't happy.
>
> If I am understanding this correctly, at the moment, I'd have to define
> a bunch of c-lambdas to manipulate and cast my byte type to integers.
>
> -d
>
>
