Talk:Substructural type system
There is a note that says the article appears to contrict itself regarding whether aliases are allowed. In what way does it contradict itself?
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
There is a note that says the article appears to contrict itself regarding whether aliases are allowed. In what way does it contradict itself?
- My mistake. I didn't read the article carefully.—greenrd (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It might be good to mention C++11's unique_ptr and move semantics/rvalue references here as an example; it is better than auto_ptr because it allows more static checking. Jewillco (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Someone did it, but now it is incorrect - the C++ code in the article is not correct C++ code, as after std::move'ing from a unique_ptr, the pointer is nulled :/ 193.0.82.141 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Links linking back the same article
In the section "Different substructural type systems" there are links for each of the four substructural type systems, but they all link back to the same article (namely this one). Is that desirable? KristofferHaugsbakk (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Ordered, Stack, "Same order"?
"Ordered type systems (discard exchange, contraction and weakening): Every variable is used exactly once in the order it was introduced."
"This can be used to model stack-based memory allocation"
Wouldn't that require *reverse* order?
50.204.20.34 (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
C# Static Constructors
Are static constructors similar to affine types? 169.244.51.180 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Clarify when "use" only concerns transfer of ownership
This nomenclature is used in discussions of lifetime semantics, where limiting how many times you can transfer ownership out of a variable binding is a meaningful distinction (say between Rust and C++), whereas how many times you can "use" a variable sounds rather esoteric. Is that a thing? The definition seems to rule out the content.Anordal (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Done: Added section about the resource interpretation (inspired by the linear logic one). As far as I know, this narrower definition is the only practically relevant of the two. I don't know if the main definition is secretly describing the same while just being vague, but I'm erring on the side of not changing the main definition.—Anordal (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.