Strong +1 for me as well, can't summarize it better then Gwynne's email On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:48 PM Gwynne Raskind via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 2016, at 18:53, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > > * What is your evaluation of the proposal? > > Very strong +1; cleaning up the global namespace, addressing confusion > with usage of these functions, and promoting the concept of the low-level > attributes of a type being related to that type (rather than being > arbitrarily global truths), are all significant wins for readability, > discoverability, and conceptual clarity. > > > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a > change to Swift? > > Definitively. The sizeof() family of functions are neither commonly enough > used nor fundamental enough to idiomatic Swift to belong in the global > namespace, and having them there adds potentially dangerous confusion for > users coming from C, C++, and Objective-C. In particular, "sizeof(T)" > almost definitely doesn’t mean what a newcomer to Swift expects, but when > encountering "MemoryLayout<T>.size" one is considerably more likely to have > at least noticed the documentation of what it means and the fact that > ".stride" exists. > > > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? > > Very much so. To me, the syntax proposed here is simpler, clearer, and > much more in keeping with OO design. > > > * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar > feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? > > The closest equivalent I can think of comes from C++, per > std::numeric_limits<T>, std::pointer_traits<T>, std::allocator_traits<T>, > etc. While C++ is being typically verbose in its syntax, it successfully > represents the type information in object-oriented and unambiguous fashion, > and the sheer verbosity aside, I’ve always liked this representation. This > proposal is substantially similar in form and at a quick glance at my own > Swift code, it adds similar clarity to the intent the code expresses. > > > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? > > A quick reading. > > -- Gwynne Raskind > More magic than a mere signature can contain > > _______________________________________________ > 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
