On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_r...@apple.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 5, 2017, at 14:50, Andrew Trick via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > We don't have a consensus, but I think the suggestion to distinguish > between single value vs. multiple semantics was good. Otherwise, > adding the default count could be very misleading. Normally, we try to > minimize surface area, but adding two methods for the single-value case > avoids ambiguity between the buffer and pointer semantics: > > UMP (pointer) > --- func initialize(to:count:(=1)) > +++ func initialize(to:) > +++ func initialize(repeating:count:) // no default count > +++ func assign(to:) > +++ func assign(repeating:count:) // no default count > > UMRP (raw pointer): > --- func initializeMemory<T>(as:at:(=0)count:(1)to:) > +++ func initializeMemory<T>(as:repeating:count:) // remove default count > > > I am *mostly* in favor of this two-method approach, but 'to' may not be > the right label. Today we have both initialize(to:…) and > initialize(from:…), which are not opposites. I think we can live with that, > but we *definitely* can't use assign(to:). "x.assign(to: y)" means some > form of "y = x". > > That said, we don't actually *need* a single-element 'assign' variant, > because you can also write it "x.pointee = y". But I agree that symmetry is > nice, if we can get it. > assign(to:) was never part of the original proposal, now that you mention it, it’s stupid and should be left out
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
