> None of it has anything to do with C++ or Rust. It was a decision of whomever wrote pin access libraries.
Which is why the article title is ‶What is Type-level programming?″ and not ‶C++ suckz Rust r0x lol″
Which is why the article title is ‶What is Type-level programming?″ and not ‶C++ suckz Rust r0x lol″
What the author shows is how the Arduino stdlib does it in an unsafe way; that it is C++ is a coincidence (and one could easily argue that the C++ Arduino stdlib is barely C-with-classes and far away from what could be done in C++).
That's exactly what they did.
> assuming there is no way to do that in C++
You are extrapolating things that are nowhere to be found in the article.
Blame Arduino for their stdlib.
> was presented as something not available in C++
You are putting things in the author's mouth, they never said that; only that it was not available in Arduino's stdlib.
Read the bloody article, it's all about the type system, not the language.
Do you really expect the author to rewrite the Arduino stdlib for the sake of pjmlp's sensibility?
I survived the Usenet flamewars, there is no sensibility to hurt.
Looking at the fellow comments the crowd shares a similar opinion on the article.
Some food for thought.
> That's exactly what they did.
You have read the article, right? It starts with showing how it looks like in C++ and then goes on with the revelation "In Rust on the other hand ...". Literally. This strongly suggests that what they are getting at is a language feature that sets Rust apart from C++.