Re: [swift-dev] What do to when stdlib guidelines conflict with proposal?

> On May 12, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-dev > wrote: > > >> On May 12, 2016, at 9:16 PM, Russ Bishop > > wrote: >> >> >>> On May 12, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Joe Groff >> > wrote: >>> >>> We might want to wait till we review Andy's U

Re: [swift-dev] What do to when stdlib guidelines conflict with proposal?

> On May 12, 2016, at 9:16 PM, Russ Bishop wrote: > > >> On May 12, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Joe Groff > > wrote: >> >> We might want to wait till we review Andy's UnsafeBytePointer proposal. If >> we accept that, it will separate UnsafePointer into its own type. >> >> -Joe

Re: [swift-dev] What do to when stdlib guidelines conflict with proposal?

> On May 12, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Joe Groff wrote: > > We might want to wait till we review Andy's UnsafeBytePointer proposal. If we > accept that, it will separate UnsafePointer into its own type. > > -Joe Fair enough; I can hold off on this branch until then. Russ

Re: [swift-dev] What do to when stdlib guidelines conflict with proposal?

> On May 11, 2016, at 10:18 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-dev > wrote: > > On May 11, 2016, at 8:17 PM, Russ Bishop via swift-dev > wrote: >> >>> On May 11, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Russ Bishop via swift-dev >>> wrote: I’m implem

Re: [swift-dev] What do to when stdlib guidelines conflict with proposal?

> On May 11, 2016, at 10:18 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > As Dmitri, we specifically discussed this in the core team meeting (I brought > it up :-). The problem is that we really only want the toOpaque() method to > exist on UnsafePointer and don’t have the ability to model that in the > languag

Re: [swift-dev] What do to when stdlib guidelines conflict with proposal?

On May 11, 2016, at 8:17 PM, Russ Bishop via swift-dev wrote: > >> On May 11, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Russ Bishop via swift-dev >> wrote: >>> I’m implementing SE-0017 but based on the standard library guidelines I >>> think Unmanaged sh

Re: [swift-dev] What do to when stdlib guidelines conflict with proposal?

> On May 11, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Russ Bishop via swift-dev > wrote: >> I’m implementing SE-0017 but based on the standard library guidelines I >> think Unmanaged should have initializers that take >> UnsafePointer/UnsafeMutablePointer

Re: [swift-dev] What do to when stdlib guidelines conflict with proposal?

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Russ Bishop via swift-dev wrote: > I’m implementing SE-0017 but based on the standard library guidelines I think > Unmanaged should have initializers that take > UnsafePointer/UnsafeMutablePointer and vice-versa which would fit more > naturally with the way othe

Re: [swift-dev] What do to when stdlib guidelines conflict with proposal?

+1 from the proposal author, although since it went through community review that doesn't make me an authority ;) On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:53 PM Russ Bishop via swift-dev < swift-dev@swift.org> wrote: > I’m implementing SE-0017 but based on the standard library guidelines I > think Unmanaged shou

[swift-dev] What do to when stdlib guidelines conflict with proposal?

I’m implementing SE-0017 but based on the standard library guidelines I think Unmanaged should have initializers that take UnsafePointer/UnsafeMutablePointer and vice-versa which would fit more naturally with the way other conversions work. A later commit already moved toOpaque to be an initia