what was the reasoning for making raw at: offset in strides and not bytes?
> On Sep 3, 2017, at 10:22 PM, Andrew Trick <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> 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
