Thanks, Andrew. In my case, the Data reads from a file, and since the raw 
access is wrapped around the LZMA decompression, I think it should be safe (no 
one else is accessing the data at that time).

I'll just wait for Foundation.Data to be updated and update my code then.

> On Sep 10, 2016, at 19:33 , Andrew Trick <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 10, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Rick Mann via swift-evolution 
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Coincidentally, I just wrote my first Swift code to use UnsafePointer<>. I 
>> was wrapping the LZMA API to decompress LZMA data. It's a C API that works 
>> by pointing to an input buffer and and output buffer, and then calling a 
>> function that decompresses what it can given those two buffers (and their 
>> lengths).
>> 
>> I treated them as UnsafePointer<UInt8>, but really they're raw, in the sense 
>> that they are not a collection of a single element, just a collection of 
>> bytes.
>> 
>> My wrapper's interface to LZMA uses Data instances. I don't see a way of 
>> getting from Data to UnsafeRawBufferPointer in Xcode 8 GM seed (which makes 
>> sense, given that this is still in progress). But I also didn't see a way to 
>> get to UnsafeRawPointer; should there be?
> 
> There should be and there isn't. It used to be Data.bytes, but it was just 
> deprecated. In the current state of limbo, you just do this:
> 
>  return data.withUnsafeBytes { bytes: UnsafeBufferPointer<UInt8> in … }
> 
> and that binds Data’s memory to UInt8. It fine in practice as long as Data 
> owns its memory (not using bytesNoCopy). Otherwise whoever else uses the 
> memory should also view it as either raw or UInt8, or they should bind memory 
> each time they access it.
> 
>> Will something be added to Data when SE-0138 is finalized? I guess that's 
>> not for Swift 3 but 3.x? 
> 
> Yes. It just takes a little more time to evolve the Data API.
> 
> -Andy
> 
>> Thanks, and sorry if I'm hijacking the thread a bit with this.
>> 
>>> On Sep 10, 2016, at 17:53 , Andrew Trick via swift-evolution 
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0138-unsaferawbufferpointer.md
>>> 
>>> The review period has been extended until September 14. The 
>>> UnsafeRawBufferPointer type name is settled, but we still need to come up 
>>> with an answer for the name of the new closure taking functions:
>>> 
>>> withXyz() should normally reveal the closure argument type as Xyz. That's 
>>> why I originally proposed UnsafeBytes as the type name. Now that we've 
>>> decided to use the descriptive type instead we have a problem...
>>> 
>>> In this code, it's obvious that a sequence of bytes is being appended to an 
>>> array.
>>> 
>>> var buffer = [UInt8]()
>>> withUnsafeBytes(of: &header) {
>>> buffer += $0
>>> }
>>> 
>>> In the following version, the closure argument type is obvious, which is 
>>> nice, but otherwise it's borderline unreadable, and doesn't describe what's 
>>> actually happenning. How can we tell that a sequence of bytes will be 
>>> appended?
>>> 
>>> var buffer = [UInt8]()
>>> withUnsafeRawBufferPointer(to: &header) {
>>> buffer += $0
>>> }
>>> 
>>> The mutable version really stretches the limits of descriptively naming 
>>> things, and still doesn't say anything about a byte sequence:
>>> 
>>> withUnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer(to: &header) {
>>> readHeader(into: $0)
>>> }
>>> 
>>> -Andy
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 2, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution 
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> on Thu Sep 01 2016, Andrew Trick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I’m resending this for Review Manager Dave A. because the announce list 
>>>>> is dropping his messages...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Swift community,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The review of "UnsafeBytes" begins now and runs through September
>>>>> 7th. This late addition to Swift 3 is a follow-up to SE-0107:
>>>>> UnsafeRawPointer. It addresses common use cases for UnsafeRawPointer,
>>>>> allowing developers to continue working with collections of UInt8 values,
>>>>> but now doing so via a type safe API. The UnsafeBytes API will not 
>>>>> require 
>>>>> direct manipulation of raw pointers or reasoning about binding memory.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The proposal is available here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0138-unsafebytes.md
>>>>>  
>>>>> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0138-unsafebytes.md>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>>>> 
>>>> I strongly support inclusion of the feature, but I have issues with the
>>>> name.  It seems to me that in order to fit into the standard library, it
>>>> should be called Unsafe[Mutable]RawBufferPointer.  Each part of the name
>>>> conveys something important, and for the same reasons we're using
>>>> Unsafe[Mutable]BufferPointer instead of UnsafeMutableElements, we should
>>>> stick to the scheme:
>>>> 
>>>> - “Unsafe,” because you can break memory safety with this tool
>>>> 
>>>> - “Raw,” because the fundamental model is that of “raw,” rather than
>>>> “typed,” memory.
>>>> 
>>>> - “Buffer,” because it works on a series of contiguous elements of known
>>>> length.
>>>> 
>>>> - “Pointer,” because it has reference semantics!  When you pass one of
>>>> these things around by value, you're not passing the bytes; you're
>>>> passing a shared reference to the bytes.
>>>> 
>>>>> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
>>>>> change to Swift?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, and it fills an important funcationality gap now that we have the
>>>> unsafe pointer model nailed down.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, except for the name.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar
>>>>> feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?  
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think any other language distinguishes raw from typed memory in
>>>> this way.
>>>> 
>>>>> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
>>>>> reading, or an in-depth study?
>>>> 
>>>> Enough ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> -Dave, posting as a reviewer, not a review manager
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Rick Mann
>> [email protected]
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 


-- 
Rick Mann
[email protected]


_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to