Mmh, I think like the do while -> repeat while change it makes sense, but not enough to displace the obvious meaning of the original... but then again, I lost back then...
Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Andrew Trick via swift-evolution <[email protected]> > Date: 18 July 2017 at 21:33:31 BST > To: Taylor Swift <[email protected]> > Cc: swift-evolution <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Improved Swift pointers > Reply-To: Andrew Trick <[email protected]> > > >>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Taylor Swift <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > fix the ordering of the arguments in >>> > initializeMemory<Element>(as:at:count:to:) >>> >>> I think this ordering was an attempt to avoid confusion with binding >>> memory where `to` refers to a type. However, it should be consistent >>> with `UnsafePointer.initialize`, so we need to pick one of those to >>> change. >> >> This would be a non-issue had we just been consistent with the rest of the >> stdlib and named this argument `repeating:` instead of `to:`. But >> `ptr.initialize(repeating: 255, count: 100)` doesn’t read quite as naturally >> in English as `ptr.initialize(to: 255, count: 100)` which is why I left this >> idea out of the proposal. Now that you mention the problem with >> `initializeMemory<Element>(as:at:count:to:)`, it might be a good idea to add >> this rename back into it. > > I think `repeating` is much more clear. > > -Andy > _______________________________________________ > 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
