Proposal: Rename var to anytype for generics

[ikskuh]

Introduce the keyword anytype to replace var in generic function declarations:

fn add2(input: anytype) @TypeOf(input) {
    return input + 2;
}

fn trueOrOne(comptime wantBool: bool) anytype {
    if(wantBool) {
        return true;
    } else {
        return @as(u32, 1);
    }
}

Benefits:

• Remove confusion about what var means.
• Prevent the word vararg which confuses with C lingo
• Is much more precise than var in the place

Downsides:

• Introduces a new keyword
• Increases the stuff one must remember

Credits go to @fengb and @Qix- for proposing the idea in IRC 👍

[Qix-]

junon = me :) Sounds good to me.

[nycex]

Isn't the type in anytype is redundant, couldn't it just be named any?

[andrewrk]

The plan for this is the same for other keyword changes. zig fmt auto correcting code for 1 release cycle, remove legacy syntax in the next release cycle.

[andrewrk]

Isn't the type in anytype is redundant, couldn't it just be named any?

The entire : foo syntax is redundant, we could even just have it so that you could omit the type and it would be any type. The counter-argument there was that it would encourage people to make generic functions even where generic functions are not appropriate.

[ikskuh]

Isn't the type in anytype is redundant, couldn't it just be named any?

I think any is too generic and anytype will communicate precisely what is arbitrary in this place. any could be any value as in the C++ type std::any which is a "union" over all types

[JesseRMeyer]

Isn't the type in anytype is redundant, couldn't it just be named any?

I think any is too generic and anytype will communicate precisely what is arbitrary in this place. any could be any value as in the C++ type std::any which is a "union" over all types

Is there any allowance in Zig's grammer where

name: specifier

does not mean 'The storage called name is of type specifier'? If not, then the structure of the : disambiguates the meaning.

[ghost]

Benefits: ...
Downsides: Increases the stuff one must remember

Easier to remember two keywords that are not context dependent IMO, but I would still prefer var over anytype in case something like this was implemented, simply because var is shorter and less obtrusive.

// isBuffer and isLogger are type predicates: fn(type) bool
fn filterProcess(input: anytype(isBuffer), output: anytype(isBuffer)) anytype(isLogger) {
    // dostuff
}

// more readable imo
fn filterProcess(input: var(isBuffer), output: var(isBuffer)) var(isLogger) {
    // dostuff
}

Same if there was a way to make aliases (item 3) of the generic type parameter.

// not immediately obvious these "types" are just aliases of the generic type
fn filterProcess(input: Buffer, output: Buffer) Logger {
    // dostuff
}
// with var or anytype "wrapping" the alias: 
fn filterProcess(input: anytype(Buffer), output: anytype(Buffer)) anytype(Logger) {
    // dostuff
}

fn filterProcess(input: var(Buffer), output: var(Buffer)) var(Logger) {
    // dostuff
}

If there won't be any "upgrades" to the generic type parameter though, I think anytype will be better than var.

[benjaminmordaunt]

As an aside, is there a sensible reason that the example code isn't able to coerce floating point types? In order to make the add2 function work as expected, we need:

fn add2(input: anytype) @TypeOf(input) {
    return input + @as(@TypeOf(input), 2);
}

This is clunky. Am I missing something here?

Also, I'm really not a fan of the @TypeOf(x) syntax in the return type, especially as I imagine this to be a fairly common pattern. Do we need a more concise syntax here to extract the type of an object? Such as @@x? This would also make type resolution more of a "first-class citizen" of the language.