> On Jun 17, 2016, at 1:01 PM, Daryle Walker via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > When I first looked into Swift, I noticed that the base type was called > “UInt8” (and “Int8”) and not something like “Byte.” I know modern computers > have followed the bog standard 8/16/32(/64) architecture for decades, but why > hard code it into the language/library? Why should 36-bit processors with > 9-bit bytes, or processors that start at 16 bits, be excluded right off the > bat? Did you guys see a problem with how (Objective-)C(++) had to define its > base types in a mushy way to accommodate the possibility non-octet bytes?
Given that there are no 9-bit byte targets supported by Swift (or LLVM), it would be impossible to test that configuration, and it is well known that untested code doesn’t work. As such, introducing a Byte type which is potentially not 8 bits in size would only add cognitive overload. Any promised portability benefit would simply mislead people. -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
