Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On the other hand, on its own sizeof() is not unsafe, and so the argument > that it should be longer to call attention to itself (by analogy with > UnsafePointer) isn't quite apt. These operations aren't themselves unsafe. But they are low level details that are not useful unless you are doing something that requires special care. A name that stands out more calls attention to the surrounding code. That is a good thing IMO. > > And I'm not sure we really want to encourage anyone else to be defining a > global function named size(of:) anyway, so I wouldn't consider vacating that > name for end-user purposes to be a meaningful positive. >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 16:15 Tony Allevato <[email protected]> wrote: >> Given that these are fairly low-level values with very specialized uses, I >> definitely agree that they should be somehow namespaced in a way that >> doesn't cause us to make very common words unusable for our users. >> >> Even size(of:) seems more general to me than I'd like. I'd like to see the >> word "memory" as part of the name somehow, whether it's a wrapping type or a >> function prefix of some sort. These values are specialized; we don't need to >> optimize typing them, IMO. >> >>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:06 PM Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:46 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Russ Bishop <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 11:30 AM, John McCall via swift-evolution >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I still think the value-based APIs are misleading and that it would be >>>>>> better to ask people to just use a type explicitly. >>>>>> >>>>>> John. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree; in fact why aren’t these properties on the type itself? The type >>>>> is what matters; why can’t the type just tell me it’s size? >>>>> Having free functions or magic operators seems to be another holdover >>>>> from C. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Int.size >>>>> Int.alignment >>>>> Int.spacing >>>>> >>>>> let x: Any = 5 >>>>> type(of: x).size >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The compiler should be able to statically know the first three values and >>>>> inline them. The second is discovering the size dynamically. >>>> >>>> Two reasons. The first is that this is a user-extensible namespace via >>>> static members, so it's somewhat unfortunate to pollute it with names from >>>> the library. The second is that there's currently no language mechanism >>>> for adding a static member to every type, so this would have to be >>>> built-in. But I agree that in the abstract a static property would be >>>> preferable. >>> >>> In the earlier conversation, it was pointed out (by Dave A., I think?) that >>> examples such as Array.size show how this solution can get confusing. And >>> even though there aren't fixed-length arrays in Swift, those may come one >>> day, making the syntax even more confusing. >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
