I do lean towards thinking byte == 8-bits is wrong. That latent learning of C in my background, and the thinking that hardware could ultimately change.
For the most part users of Leaf will never see this byte type, only those doing integration with non-Leaf libraries or direct memory access.
If your byte type is supposed to be for integration with non-Leaf libraries, I believe you should base it on the specifications for those libraries.
If you expect the integration to be via C libraries, then I believe you should base your specification of byte on exactly what C says it is.
It will be better for your interoperability with C if you can say
byte - The specification of a byte according to all laws and regulations of C's implementation on whatever platform you're running on.
rather than
byte - Mostly what C says it is. Except when it isn't, in which case you will have massive headaches and have to implement a lot of workarounds both in your code and any interop layers you might have.
Yes, I already have a series of abi_ types, so abi_byte makes sense. But C-integration is only part of the story, there are still some low-level cases that require the same concept as a byte. Those are quite low level though, so still ABI relevant. Perhaps just an abi_byte isn't a bad compromise.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I do lean towards thinking
byte == 8-bitsis wrong. That latent learning of C in my background, and the thinking that hardware could ultimately change.For the most part users of Leaf will never see this
bytetype, only those doing integration with non-Leaf libraries or direct memory access.If your
bytetype is supposed to be for integration with non-Leaf libraries, I believe you should base it on the specifications for those libraries.If you expect the integration to be via C libraries, then I believe you should base your specification of byte on exactly what C says it is.
It will be better for your interoperability with C if you can say
byte- The specification of a byte according to all laws and regulations of C's implementation on whatever platform you're running on.rather than
byte- Mostly what C says it is. Except when it isn't, in which case you will have massive headaches and have to implement a lot of workarounds both in your code and any interop layers you might have.Yes, I already have a series of
abi_types, soabi_bytemakes sense. But C-integration is only part of the story, there are still some low-level cases that require the same concept as abyte. Those are quite low level though, so still ABI relevant. Perhaps just anabi_byteisn't a bad compromise.