Hacker News Reader

Comment by quotemstr | Hacker News Reader

I've been thinking for a while now about using dependant typing to enforce good numerics in numerics kernels. Wouldn't it be nice if we could propagate value bounds and make catastrophic cancellation a type error?

Have you worked much with SAL and MIDL from Microsoft? Using SAL (an aesthetically hideous but conceptually beautiful macro based gradual typing system for C and C++) overlay guarantees about not only reference safety but also sign comparison restriction, maximum buffer sizes, and so on.

View on HN

Please do this.

But first: we need to take step-zero and introduce a type "r64": a "f64" that is not nan/inf.

Rust has its uint-thats-not-zero - why not the same for floating point numbers??

You can write your "r64" type today. You would need a perma-unstable compiler-only feature to give your type a huge niche where the missing bit patterns would go, but otherwise there's no problem that I can see, so if you don't care about the niche it's just another crate - there is something similar called noisy_float

I can do it, and I do similar such things in C++ - but the biggest benefit of "safe defaults" is the standardization of such behaviors, and the resultant expectations/ecosystem.

> Rust has its uint-thats-not-zero

Why do we need to single out a specific value. It would be way better if we also could use uint-without-5-and-42. What I would wish for is type attributes that really belong to the type.

    typedef unsigned int __attribute__ ((constraint (X != 5 && X != 42))) my_type;

Those are the unstable attributes that your sibling is talking about.

Yeah of course I can put what I want in my toy compiler. My statement was about standard C. I think that's what Contracts really are and hope this will be included in C.

Oh sure, I wouldn’t call rustc a “toy compiler” but yeah, they’d be cool in C as well.

Proper union types would get you there. If you have them, then each specific integer constant is basically its own type, and e.g. uint8 is just (0|1|2|...|255). So long as your type algebra has an operator that excludes one of the variants from the union to produce a new one, it's trivial to exclude whatever, and it's still easy for the compiler to reason about such types and to provide syntactic sugar for them like 0..255 etc.

Dependent types in well-behaved, well-defined snippets of C++ dedicated to numeric kernels?

While I think it's a great idea, this also sounds like it would require fairly major rewrites (and possibly specialized libraries?), which suggests that it would be hard to get much buy-in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com