On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Patrick Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> I really like this idea. This IMO is lower level functionality than > `type(of:)` (née dynamicType), so I think it makes sense for it to be > grouped under its own domain, the MemoryLayout type. > > Plus MemoryLayout can be extended with new convenience methods. > > I’m fine with those old methods being removed, but I never use them so! Is > it the same as calling type(of:) then using that with MemoryLayout? I > imagine they could be fixit’d easily, and that they compile down to the > same underlying code. > I'm actually souring to the idea. It goes in the diametrically opposite direction from dynamicType. There, something was changed from being property-like to being function-like. Here, Dave's proposal would take something that's a function and turn it into a property. Hmm. > On 2 Jun 2016, at 3:05 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > 2. Dave A. and others expressed the opinion that these should probably not > be global functions; his preference was for: > > ``` > MemoryLayout<T>.size // currently sizeof() > MemoryLayout<T>.spacing // currently strideof() > MemoryLayout<T>.alignment // currently alignof() > ``` > > 3. Dave A. proposed that sizeofValue(), strideofValue(), and > alignofValue() are better off removed altogether. I don't know if people > are going to be happy about this idea. > > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
