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 <swift-evolution@swift.org> > Date: 18 July 2017 at 21:33:31 BST > To: Taylor Swift <kelvin1...@gmail.com> > Cc: swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> > Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Improved Swift pointers > Reply-To: Andrew Trick <atr...@apple.com> > > >>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Taylor Swift <kelvin1...@gmail.com> 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 > 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
