Better handling of NULL-unspecified types #695
Labels
A-framework
Affects the framework crates and the translator for them
enhancement
New feature or request
Comments
madsmtm
added
enhancement
madsmtm
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 11, 2025
The headers are sometimes insufficient in this regard, and you're likely to be able to cause unsoundness if passing NULL to these. Part of #695.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Certain types are "null-unspecified", that is, we don't know enough about their null-ability to make an informed decision about how to map them. Swift uses force-unwrapped optionals which fit this purpose well, example.
For safety, we currently emit these as
Option<...>in return position, and for flexibility we emit them asOption<...>in argument position.However, I'm not sure that allowing optional types in argument position is a perfectly good idea, as it might make it harder to mark a method as safe, especially if we ever want to do that automatically? CoreFoundation seems to be pretty consistent in either crashing or returning NULL if it gets a NULL argument, but I'm not sure it always does that?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: