This is a huge mistake. You would never expect something like bitCast to do this.

I don't understand this approach. Why change something so simple and low level to be complicated and high level?

Just don't allow casting to u24, as it makes no sense unless you define u24 to be u32 sized as I think c standard does.

I think this approach as an idea is bad but at least just add another built-in that implements this higher level idea to not break a simple expectation and current behavior?

mlugg, please don't apologize for creating something I actually want to read. I'm drowning in low effort garbage, the in depth technical explanation is a refreshing breath of fresh air.

Might as well apologize for creating a language without a garbage collector, sure most people are unwilling to think, but some of us like nice things and are actually willing to apply effort.

I wonder, these arbitrary-width integers... Is it actually even really worth it? My intuition is to prefer manually packing/unpacking things instead (in any language, even C that has bit width for struct fields), because it gives me a better mental picture of the code that is actually generated. Particularly for something like an signed odd-bit integer - what kind of code gets generated for sign-extension, a presumably common operation?

Does anybody have other experiences with them, one way or the other?

Don't get me wrong, I love Zig and I think it's a great C replacement, but I'm very confused on why C3 or Odin rarely get any attention at all, despite being in the same C-replacement crowd.

But still surprised at what Zig does better than these other projects? Is Andrew much better at marketing/promoting the language? He's very hard to dislike.