(no title)
aDyslecticCrow | 1 month ago
Just because something already exists in some language doesn't make it less clever. It's not very widespread, and it's very powerful when applicable.
This format can handle "string views" with the same logic as "normal strings" without relying on interfaces or inheritance overhead.
it's clever.
masklinn|1 month ago
It is tho?
> and it's very powerful when applicable.
I don't believe I stated or even hinted otherwise?
> This format can handle "string views" with the same logic as "normal strings" without relying on interfaces or inheritance overhead.
"owned" and "borrowed" strings have different lifecycles and if you can't differentiate them easily it's very easy to misuse a borrowed string into an UAF (or as Java did into a memory leak). That is bad.
And because callees usually know whether they need a borrowed string, and they're essentially free, the utility of making them implicit is close to nil.
Which is why people have generally stopped doing that, and kept borrowed strings as a separate type. Without relying on interfaces or inheritance.
> it's clever.
The wrong type thereof. It's clever in the same way java 1.4's shared substring were clever, with worse consequences.
aDyslecticCrow|1 month ago
You're getting into pedantics about specific languages and their implementation. I never made a statement about C++ or java. I work in primarily in c99 myself.
> the utility of making them implicit is close to nil. > Without relying on interfaces or inheritance.
Implement a function that takes three strings without 3! permutations of that function either explicitly or implicitly created.