On 21 June 2016 at 14:03, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Swift community, > > The review of "SE-0101: Rename sizeof and related functions to comply with > API Guidelines" begins now and runs through June 27. The proposal is > available here: > > > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0101-standardizing-sizeof-naming.md > > * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
After a carefull review of the proposal, I will be obligated to decline it. After studying the proposal I ended up thinking I was writing more code to get the data and in comparison with dynamicType -> type(of:) it lead me to think at first the proposal would suggest renaming size* functions to size(of*:) and so forth, which would seem to go more towards the compared proposal (SE-0096). This idea doesn't even made into the alternatives considered and I think it would making reading and understanding the code much clearer than the proposed nested function calls. > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a > change to Swift? I'm not sure. Given the reasoning I'd say yes but given proposal SE-0096 I'd say yes only if the new function names were to be size(of*:), stride(of*:) and align(of*:) and thus not depending of the nested result of type(of*:). > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? I don't think so. As I said, when I finished reading the proposal, I ended up thinking I was writing more code in the new version and it didn't seem very clear to me what was the size I was getting. Moreover, it seems I'll always have to invoke these functions to the result of type(of*:) which would be unnecessary redundant code. > * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar > feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? Many languages (like C/C++, C#, D) have both sizeof and typeof and in most these two functions have similar names and syntaxes. In this case I believe making them different makes it hard to discover those functions exist and relate their purpose. > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? A quick study was enough for me. L _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
