Ben L. Titzer

I have done some work on this recently, e.g. `Pointer.atContents` can work with ranges now. For the built-in `System` component, I was thinking of adding new methods that take a...

Not currentl, no.

I'd like to incrementally move away from nullable types, perhaps introducing `?` as the option type constructor, and `null` as the value for not-present. My concern is how much real...

One possible migration path would be to introduce the option type constructor first, while keeping the nullability of class and array types as it is now. The option type constructor...

> Yes that makes sense to me. > > What do you imagine the semantics of a nullable type are? For the sake of argument, let's take a user defined...

> Ah right -- I just realized that yeah Virgil does not have built-in types that start with a capital letter other than `Array`. Is there any particular reason for...

I've been ruminating on this in the background and I've started to think that we should consider a post-MVP feature that allows regular load/store instructions (of which we now have...

> Just to mention it: an alternative that we have thrown around in the past was to have a form of reinterpret cast on (transparent) array types, such that array(i8)...

I agree with @rossberg that we should avoid the use of `open` and `closed`, because those would become confusing in the presence of type imports (the type variables Andreas alludes...

I generally don't have too strong a preference for considerations in the text format, but I do find that when the text format differs from internal engine representations, it's confusing...