> On 11 Oct 2016, at 12:59, Jay Abbott <j...@abbott.me.uk> wrote: > > This is interesting. I'm trying to evaluate your statement that "No setter > would be needed if a mutation clause is provided" but I can't think exactly > what the compiler would do in the case where there is a 'get' and 'mutate', > but no 'set'... > a) when you call a non-mutating function;
This would just call the getter and call the function on the result, exactly how it works right now. > b) when you assign a new value. A setter would be a special case of a “mutator”, where the starting value of the inout parameter is ignored. So the mutate clause would be invoked with `{ (x: inout T) in x = newValue }`. Does that make sense? > c) when get and set aren't implemented with a matching hidden var (i.e. using > a bit in an int var or storing in a dictionary). I’m not sure what you mean by this. The getter and setter are implemented, but the mutator isn’t? Could you clarify? > > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 at 11:26 Tim Vermeulen via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > Just having getters and setters doesn’t allow this (unless the optimiser is > really smart about it). All the current API allows is grabbing whatever the > `get` clause returns, mutating it, and then passing it into the `set` clause, > whatever that does. The `set` clause might not do anything, or what it does > could be seemingly unrelated to the `get` clause, so it’s not a trivial task > to optimise this. > >> On 11 Oct 2016, at 06:35, Erica Sadun <er...@ericasadun.com >> <mailto:er...@ericasadun.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:53 PM, Tim Vermeulen via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> >>> There have been many instances where unexpected bad performance was caused >>> by the interplay between getters, setters, mutations and the copy-on-write >>> mechanism. For example: >>> >>> struct Foo { >>> private var _array: [Int] = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] >>> >>> var array: [Int] { >>> get { return _array } >>> set { _array = newValue } >>> } >>> } >>> >>> var foo = Foo() >>> foo.array.append(6) // an O(n) operation >>> >>> I propose a `mutate` clause which provides a `mutate` function with a >>> single inout parameter (similar to how `set` provides `newValue`), which >>> can be used instead of a setter: >>> >>> var array: [Int] { >>> get { return _array } >>> mutate { mutate(&_array) } >>> } >>> >>> The compiler could then translate each mutation of `foo.array` to a closure >>> with an inout parameter, which is then passed into the `mutate` clause >>> (which in turn is executed with `_array` as its argument, as per the >>> snippet above). For example, for `foo.array.append(6)`, the compiler would >>> internally generate the closure `{ (arr: inout [Int]) in arr.append(6) }` >>> and pass it into the `mutate` clause, `_array` is then passed as its >>> parameter and the array is updated in constant time. >>> >>> I apologise if that was too hard to follow. >>> >>> No setter would be needed if a mutation clause is provided, but I see no >>> good reason to do away with setters altogether, so this proposal would be >>> purely additive. >> >> If this is computationally better, why is it not the default behavior rather >> than an API change? >> >> -- E >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution