> On May 11, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Dmitri Gribenko <griboz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 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 initializer on OpaquePointer.
>> I would add convenience initializers to UnsafePointer as well.
>>
>> Any objections to just implementing this as initializers and marking
>> fromOpaque as deprecated? I’m not sure how strict we should be in sticking
>> to the proposal.
>
> Unmanaged shall be redesigned. We thought about this change, and
> decided to go for the incremental change as proposed. Bigger changes
> should be considered as a part of a cohesive Unmanaged redesign.
>
Why did someone move toOpaque then? It seems like the door was already opened
there - it isn’t possible to stick to the proposal as approved anyway.
I can certainly move it back but the initializer vs static seems like a
best-practices and library design issue orthogonal to Unmanaged itself.
At the end of the day if the core team still prefers to go with the
fromOpaque/toOpaque approach I’m happy to implement it (in fact I have both
implemented locally right now).
Russ
> Dmitri
>
> --
> main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
> (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <griboz...@gmail.com>*/
_______________________________________________
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
