I’m fairly confident the author of the collection has to make those checks for memory-safety, but in theory there’s wins in only doing the check once, and as early as possible. Smaller values to pass, and less checks.
This is definitely micro-micro-optimization, though. Unlikely to matter for most cases. > On Oct 18, 2016, at 6:00 PM, Max Moiseev via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Yes, if the author of the collection you’re using performs the check in > `removeLast`, but they don’t have to. > >> On Oct 18, 2016, at 1:28 PM, Jean-Daniel <d...@xenonium.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Le 17 oct. 2016 à 23:20, Max Moiseev via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> a écrit : >>> >>> Hi Louis, >>> >>> I believe, sometimes there are situations where you know for sure that your >>> collection is not empty. Maybe you are already in the context where the >>> check has been performed. In these cases there is no reason you’d have to >>> pay the price of an emptiness check once again. >> >> You have to pay the price anyway, as the check has to be performed to decide >> if the software should abort. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
