Re: [swift-users] struct property changing calls didSet of the Struct each time, but class won't

In your example, when `Foo` is a class, then `A` does not see a mutation since the storage is out-of-line. When `Foo` is a struct, it is stored in-line and a mutation does mutate `A`. In other words, when what’s stored in `A` is a reference, the reference itself does not get mutated when you

Re: [swift-users] Why does the withUnsafeMutableBufferPointer closure take an inout parameter?

> On Oct 14, 2017, at 10:29, Braden Scothern via swift-users > wrote: > > There is a lot of value in these being mutating functions when working with C > APIs that need a buffer for it to write to. > > If you have a collection and ensure it had allocated it's memory,

Re: [swift-users] Why does the withUnsafeMutableBufferPointer closure take an inout parameter?

It’s not a bug-fix and it is an API change, so it seems it would have to go through evolution. Guillaume Lessard ___ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users

Re: [swift-users] Why does the withUnsafeMutableBufferPointer closure take an inout parameter?

A lot of the MutableCollection implementation is in protocol extensions (swapAt, for example.) Should an additional version be written just for the Unsafe*BufferPointer types? Guillaume Lessard ___ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org

Re: [swift-users] UnsafeMutableRawPointer to UnsafeMutablePointer: EXC_BAD_ACCESS on pointee

[re-sending to the list, and elaborating] You are making the runtime use the first word of the referent as if it were the reference. The lowercase-c variable is a reference. rawPointer contains the same value, and points to the beginning of the object data. Your typecasting is telling the

Re: [swift-users] RSS feed for the Swift.org blog not working

% wget http://swift.org/atom.xml URL transformed to HTTPS due to an HSTS policy [snip] HSTS -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6797 swift.org has simply become inaccessible to non-secure or misconfigured clients. GL ___ swift-users mailing list

Re: [swift-users] Simultaneous access to global tuple members

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 09:10, Martin R wrote: > > In that example the tuple is a (stored) property of a class, not a global > variable. And why does it crash for a global variable, but not for a local > variable in a function? In the case of a local variable in a

Re: [swift-users] Simultaneous access to global tuple members

> On Aug 8, 2017, at 01:11, Martin R via swift-users > wrote: > > SE-0176 Enforce Exclusive Access to Memory > (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0176-enforce-exclusive-access-to-memory.md) > states that "Accesses to different stored

Re: [swift-users] Why inout protocol parameter in function work with strange

In your example, the compiler needs a parameter of type Position. Car is a type of Position, but they are not interchangeable. See below: > On May 26, 2017, at 00:33, Седых Александр via swift-users > wrote: > > protocol Position { > var x: Double { getset } > } >

Re: [swift-users] Annotating C APIs without changing the original header files

> On May 12, 2017, at 12:33, Daniel Dunbar via swift-users > wrote: > > We don't have explicit support for api notes in SwiftPM. > It would also be useful for cases when the latest versions of clang can’t be counted on for Linux deployments (3.6 is considered

Re: [swift-users] Atomics and Memory Fences in Swift

It works now, but it's not correct. I wish there were a correct way available. Guillaume Lessard > On May 3, 2017, at 21:30, Colin Barrett via swift-users > wrote: > > I haven't used this in production, but this repository looks pretty > promising. It's more or less

Re: [swift-users] weak self

> On May 2, 2017, at 00:05, Rien wrote: > > Interesting: this is a kind-of symmetry break between optionals and weak > references. > I.e. most (inexperienced?) programmers will see a strong similarity between > weak references and optionals. > And for a lot of use cases

Re: [swift-users] Protocol conformance failure

> On Mar 9, 2017, at 12:46, Edward Connell via swift-users > wrote: > > // Everything compiles fine until this > someFunc(items: items) This is a frequent pain point: protocol existentials cannot stand in for the protocol they represent. Your function wants a concrete

Re: [swift-users] Ugliness bridging Swift String to char *

> On Mar 6, 2017, at 12:28 AM, Kenny Leung via swift-users > wrote: > > Follow-up on this: > > The StaticString solution doesn’t work: > > let separator: StaticString = “|” > opt.fieldSep = UnsafeMutablePointer(mutating: separator.utf8start) > > … because utf8start

Re: [swift-users] Is this really a race condition?

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Edward Connell via swift-users > wrote: > > The thread sanitizer on Linux is reporting that I have race conditions in > libswiftcore. I eliminated enough code down to this trivial example. Is there > really a race condition here or are

Re: [swift-users] for in? optionalCollection {

This could come for almost free after SE-0143 is implemented: an Optional of a Sequence could itself be made to conform to Sequence. It would cost no new syntax. extension Optional: Sequence where Wrapped: Sequence { func makeIterator() -> AnyIterator { switch self { case .some(let

Re: [swift-users] Collection Oddities

> On 7 févr. 2017, at 21:57, Slava Pestov <spes...@apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:14 PM, Guillaume Lessard via swift-users >> <swift-users@swift.org> wrote: >> >> I keep running into weird things with Swift 3 Collections. >

[swift-users] Collection Oddities

I keep running into weird things with Swift 3 Collections. A) Collection has its count property defined as an Int via IndexDistance: public protocol Collection : Indexable, Sequence { associatedtype IndexDistance : SignedInteger = Int // line 182 in Collection.swift public var count:

Re: [swift-users] Confused/Surprised by IndexingIterator.forEach behavior

forEach is defined by the Sequence protocol, and is not a mutating function. By definition, it must create a local iterator in order to perform its duty. As a consequence, the variable `stream` is the same immediately before and after the forEach call. Cheers, Guillaume Lessard

Re: [swift-users] Weird protocol behaviour.

The function foo(x: A){} requires a type which conforms to protocol P. An existential of protocol P does not actually conform to protocol P. It’s always been a limitation in Swift: https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-55 If the function’s signature were foo(x: P){}, it would work. Howard’s example