i love that zig doesn't have a special syntax for generics, it just allows anything to be resolved at compile-time -- including types. which gives you generics 'for free'.
I've only cursory of Zig, so bear with me. Does this mean that Zig templates are like C++, that is, duck typing? Or is there a notion of constraining the type arguments?
It's duck typed but it's not based on a funky and limited syntax, but rather types at comptime become normal arguments to functions that you can then inspect using normal Zig code.
It's duck typed but let's say your "template" takes an integer and divides by two depending on some boolean (perhaps you need to return a lookup table of sometimes half the bitwidth of an integer type). That function called by your template at compile time to maybe-divide-by-two is in the same language as runtime zig, and you could even conceivably call that very same function as a compiled entity in the runtime context.
