upvote

points

by mistrial93 days ago |
comments
upvoteby jlouis3 days ago|
next
[-]
Not a niche feature. Fundamental for any decent language with a type system.
reply
upvoteby mistrial92 days ago|
parent|
[-]
ok, but C99 and C++11 and others, all have ways to implement types. "Fundemental" as you say.. using UNION in C++ is not a good choice to implement types.. in old C99, you can use UNION that way but why? footguns all around.
reply
upvoteby saagarjha1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
std::variant does not exist in C99.
reply
upvoteby soraminazuki3 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Whoa, that's a core building block of programming and computer science that you're dismissing as "niche" without explanation.
reply
upvoteby mistrial92 days ago|
parent|
[-]
yes types are a core building block of programming and computer science, but not using UNION ? this casual dismissal of "criticisms of UNION" here seems superficial and un-wise to me.
reply
upvoteby soraminazuki2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Sum types, not C unions. Different concepts.

A sum type is a concept from type theory. Like unions, it expresses a type that can be either one of multiple types. But unlike unions, it retains information about which type it is.

Properly implemented sum types are completely type safe. I can't be 100% sure what your particular "criticisms" of C unions precisely are, but assuming they all relate to type safety, they don't apply to sum types.

Sum types are important because any real world project has to deal with data that's either A or B. There's nothing controversial here.

In C, a union is a way to implement that. Yes, it's unsafe. But can you eliminate the use of unsafe features from C projects? No, if they deal with memory.

Also, it's rich and quite frankly rude to brush off my comment as "casual dismissals," "superficial," and "unwise" when it's a direct response to this.

> your niche feature "sum types"

That's pure unprovoked smugness right there that contains no substance of what your criticisms actually are, let alone the reason.

reply
upvoteby grandempire3 days ago|
prev|
[-]
That’s for C++. And how is std::variant implemented?
reply
upvoteby LowLevelMahn3 days ago|
parent|
[-]
not using a union: https://ojdip.net/2013/10/implementing-a-variant-type-in-cpp... because the union can't be extended with variadic template types
reply
upvoteby LegionMammal9783 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Actually, it does use a union, in both libstdc++ [0] and libc++ [1]. (Underneath a lengthy stack of base classes, since it wouldn't be C++ if it weren't painful to match the specified semantics.)

[0] https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=libstdc%2B%2B-v3...

[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/llvmorg-20.1.3/lib...

reply
upvoteby grandempire3 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So instead it has a buffer large enough to hold all the types? That’s what union does.

Still waiting to hear the security concerns.

reply