If we went that route, could arithmetic operations still be implemented


On Tuesday, October 18, 2016, Guoye Zhang via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

> Currently, Swift Int family and UInt family have compact representations
> that utilize all available values, which is inherited from C. However, it
> is horribly inefficient to implement optional integers. It takes double the
> space to store [Int?] than to store [Int] because of alignment.
> I propose to ban the top value in Int/UInt which is 0xFFFF... in hex. Int
> family would lose its smallest value, and UInt family would lose its
> largest value. Top value is reserved for nil in optionals. An additional
> benefit is that negating an Int would never crash.
> Interacting with C/Obj-C is a major concern, but since we are already
> importing some of the unsigned integers as Int which loses half the values,
> one value is not such big a drawback. Alternatively, we could leave current
> behavior as CInt/CUInt. Converting them to the new Int?/UInt? doesn't
> generate any instructions since the invalid value already represents nil.
> With optional integers improved, we could implement safe arithmetic
> efficiently, or even revisit lenient subscript proposals, but they are not
> in the scope of this pitch. Float/Double optionals could also be improved
> with the similar idea. (Isn't signaling nan the same as nil) Nested
> optionals such as "Int??" are still bloated, but I don't think they are
> widely used.
> So what do you think? Can we break C compatibility a bit for better Swift
> types?
> - Guoye
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org <javascript:;>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to