on Wed Jun 01 2016, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Upon accepting SE-0098, the core team renamed the proposed stdlib function > from dynamicType() to type(of:). They write, "The > core team recognizes that this means that we should probably resyntax the > existing sizeof/strideof functions, but that should be > a follow-on discussion." > > Follow on discussion started. Have at it. > > See: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/15830 > > To summarize the previous discussion: > > 1. Per Joe Groff, although sizeof() and friends are treated as terms-of-art, > these names were lifted straight from C and do not correspond to > anything named "sizeof" in LLVM. > > 2. There are issues with using a name such as stride(of:), because > stride(...) already means something else in the stdlib; moreover, size(of:) > isn't > the best name for something that doesn't do what its C namesake does; > therefore, larger changes to the naming were suggested. > > 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() > ```
I'd also be willing to see memoryLayout(T.self).size, if pressed. > 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. I would be happy to hear from people about their use-cases that become utterly unreadable when sizeofValue(x) is replaced by MemoryLayout<x.Self>.size or memoryLayout(type(of: x)).size But if we don't have strong evidence that such use-cases exist, I am strongly biased toward removing those functions. These incredibly low-level facilities are seldom used, even within the standard library. It would take a very strong argument to convince me that the exposed API should be broader than absolutely necessary in this area. > * * * > > If we take inspiration from type(of:), then it's actually sizeofValue(), > etc., that should be renamed size(of:), etc. Also, a fun tidbit is that what's > currently called sizeof(), etc.--the ones that take types rather than > values--are actually not very good candidates for having parameter labels, > because it's OK to write `sizeof(Int)`, but one must currently write > `size(of: Int.self)` when the function has a label. > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > -- -Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
