> On Apr 22, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > One comment: > > "In the most common case where a developer does not provide a custom > reference type, then the backing store is our existing NSData and > NSMutableData implementations. This consolidates logic into one place and > provides cheap bridging in many cases (see Bridging for more information).” > > Would it not be more efficient to bridge to the C-based CFData and > CFMutableData implementations instead, to avoid the object overhead?
Actually it is often the case that the NS counterparts are faster than the CF versions (data being one of them). > > Charles > >> On Apr 22, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Tony Parker via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear swift-evolution denizens, >> >> As you know from our announcement of Swift Open Source and our work on >> naming guidelines, one of our goals for Swift 3 is to “drop NS” for >> Foundation. We want to to make the cross-platform Foundation API that is >> available as part of swift-corelibs feel like it is not tied to just Darwin >> targets. We also want to reinforce the idea that new Foundation API must fit >> in with the language, standard library, and the rapidly evolving design >> patterns we see in the community. >> >> You challenged us on one part of this plan: some Foundation API just doesn’t >> “feel Swifty”, and a large part of the reason why is that it often does not >> have the same value type behavior as other Swift types. We took this >> feedback seriously, and I would like to share with you the start of an >> important journey for some of the most commonly used APIs on all of our >> platforms: adopting value semantics for key Foundation types. >> >> We have been working on this for some time now, and the set of diffs that >> result from this change is large. At this point, I am going to focus effort >> on an overview of the high level goals and not the individual API of each >> new type. In order to focus on delivering something up to our quality >> standards, we are intentionally leaving some class types as-is until a >> future proposal. If you don’t see your favorite class on the list — don’t >> despair. We are going to iterate on this over time. I see this as the start >> of the process. >> >> One process note: we are still trying to figure out the best way to >> integrate changes to API that ship as part of the operating system (which >> includes Foundation) into the swift-evolution review process. >> Swift-evolution is normally focused on changes to functionality in the >> compiler or standard library. In general, I don’t expect all new Foundation >> API introduced in the Darwin/Objective-C framework to go through the open >> source process. However, as we’ve brought up this topic here before, I felt >> it was important to bring this particular change to the swift-evolution list. >> >> As always I welcome your feedback. >> >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0069-swift-mutability-for-foundation.md >> >> Thanks, >> - Tony >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
