> On Sep 3, 2017, at 8:05 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If we use byte offset, then the at parameter in UnsafeMutableRawPointer
> should be removed, since pointer arithmetic can be used instead (just like
> with UnsafeMutablePointer).
>
> I agree that it seems quite sensible to remove the ‘at’ parameter altogether
> from the UMRP method.
No code in tree or on github is using the `at` argument. I think it can be
removed. A fixit should still be possible.
> Not convinced moving the at: argument to come before the as: argument is
> worth it in terms of source breakage.
>
> Since much of this proposal involves shuffling and relabeling arguments, I’d
> argue it’s better to break slight more source in one go for the optimal API
> than to break slightly less for a slightly less optimal API, no? (This is
> assuming there is agreement that ‘at:as:’ is less prone to misinterpretation
> than ‘as:at:’.)
To be clear, we’re just talking about
UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer.initializeMemory now, so this is purely additive.
I think the label needs to be `atByteOffset`, and placing it before `as` makes
a lot of sense because it no longer depends on the type’s stride.
-Andy
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
