> On Aug 8, 2017, at 12:35 AM, Félix Cloutier <felixclout...@icloud.com> wrote: > > All this means is that `joined()` does not create an array that contains the > new result. It's only as magic as the COW semantics on arrays.
So you’re saying the COW semantics for Array and other standard library types have secret references/pointers that work even for “let”-mode objects, and the Sequence variants the various forms of “joined” need use a Sequence/Collection of those secret references? >> Le 7 août 2017 à 21:12, Daryle Walker via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolut...@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolut...@swift.org>> a écrit : >> >> I was looking at random items at SwiftDoc.org <http://swiftdoc.org/>, and >> noticed the “FlattenBidirectionalCollection” structure. It helps implement >> some versions of “joined” from Sequence (probably when the Sequence is also >> a BidirectionalCollection). The directions for the type state that “joined” >> does not create new storage. Then wouldn’t it have to refer to the source >> objects by reference? How; especially how does it work without requiring a >> “&” with “inout” or how it works with “let”-mode objects? Or am I >> misunderstanding how it works behind the covers? >> >> (If there is a secret sauce to have one object refer to another without >> “&”/“inout”/“UnsafeWhateverPointer”, I like to know. It may help with >> implementing an idea. The idea involves extending the language, so “compiler >> magic” that the user can’t access is OK; I’d just claim to use the same >> sauce in my proposal.) — Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT mac DOT com
_______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
