I'm definitely getting something wrong here, I know you're better at this stuff than me, but I'm just not getting it. As far as I know, *const T, no matter what T is, should be the same size as *const AnyOtherType. - ThreadSky

About ThreadSky

zperk.net • 39 days ago

I'm definitely getting something wrong here, I know you're better at this stuff than me, but I'm just not getting it. As far as I know, *const T, no matter what T is, should be the same size as *const AnyOtherType.

Comments

zperk.net•39 days ago

Fat pointers are a thing, like Box and &[T], but you're creating a whole new regular pointer type in the generic argument, right?

rezwhap.bsky.social•39 days ago

If T is dyn U or [U], *const T will be fat, won’t it?

fasterthanli.me•39 days ago

yea exactly. the (awful) code in question is in `PtrConst`, which uses `NonNull` under the hood, so it's.. only suited to thin pointers. it's not good, there's not much to understand, I need to figure this stuff out later.

zperk.net•39 days ago

Ah ok. Those types (dyn T and [T] and also str) are not something I'm super familiar with. I know how &dyn Trait, Box, &[T], Box<[T]>, &str and Box work (and I guess you could replace Box with Rc/Arc/etc) but those types without the & or Box are not something that

zperk.net•39 days ago

I've ever bothered to make fully click in my head since they're weird. You can't assign a variable to them, unlike every other type.

zperk.net•39 days ago

Ok, maybe not *every* other type... there is the never type (!)... but... does that count? Isn't that more of like a compiler hint?

Posting Rules

Be respectful to others
No spam or self-promotion
Stay on topic
Follow Bluesky's terms of service

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply