> On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Taylor Swift <kelvin1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure removing the need for implicit casts is a goal. I did
> that with the pointer `init` methods, but now I think that should be
> cleaned up to reduce API surface. I think smaller API surface wins in
> these cases. Is there a usability issue you're solving?
>
> Yes, I can imagine initializing a mutable pointer to some values, and then
> wanting to use that pointer as a source to initialize more buffers. Having to
> convert a mutable pointer to an immutable pointer is annoying because a
> function that takes an immutable pointer obviously shouldn’t care if the
> pointer could be mutated anyway. It’s like having to rebind a `var` variable
> to a `let` constant before passing it as any non-inout argument to a
> function, since function parameters are immutable. At any rate, this only
> applies to two out of the seven memorystate operations, so comparably, it’s
> not a big API expansion at all.
The conversion you’re talking about should be handled by the compiler.
public func get<T>(_ p: UnsafePointer<T>) -> T {
return p.pointee
}
public func foo<T>(p: UnsafeMutablePointer<T>) {
_ = get(p)
}
Or are you thinking of a different use case?
-Andy_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
