<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div>On Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Joe Groff wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div> </div>
<div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Dec 16, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Kevin Ballard <<a href="mailto:kevin@sb.org">kevin@sb.org</a>> wrote:<br></div>
<div> </div>
<div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:Helvetica"><span class="size" style="font-size:12px">On Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Joe Groff wrote:</span></span><br></div>
<blockquote style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;orphans:auto;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:auto;word-spacing:0px;-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;" type="cite"><div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div>On Dec 16, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Kevin Ballard via swift-dev <<a href="mailto:swift-dev@swift.org">swift-dev@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br></div>
<div> </div>
<div>On Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 12:12 AM, Dave Abrahams wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite">Come to think of it, what's the actual use-case for withUnsafePointer()?<br></blockquote><div> </div>
<div>I'm not sure we still have one that isn't covered by &x; that's my point.<br></div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite">If a value is mutable, you can already use &x or withUnsafeMutablePointer(), and if it's immutable, you can't call withUnsafePointer() today anyway. The proposed change would just make withUnsafePointer() into the equivalent of `var x = value; callSomethingWith(&x)`. The only reason to really want a withUnsafePointer() function is if it can give you an UnsafePointer to an immutable value without copying it, but we can't do that. I'm inclined to say we should just get rid of withUnsafePointer() entirely, at least until such time as Swift has a way to pass immutable values by-ref.<br></blockquote><div> </div>
<div>I'm inclined to agree. Proposal?<br></div>
</blockquote><div> </div>
<div>Sure, I'll write one up. I suspect that withUnsafePointer() / withUnsafeMutablePointer() are likely to be rarely used today, and most uses can probably be trivially replaced with just passing a &x ref, so this shouldn't be a big deal.<br></div>
</blockquote><div> </div>
<div>We can't remove withUnsafe[Mutable]Pointer; as I mentioned to Dave, it's necessary to persist a pointer for more than one immediate call.<br></div>
</blockquote><div> </div>
<div><span class="font" style="font-family:Helvetica"><span class="size" style="font-size:12px">Rare cases like that can be covered by either declaring a nested function taking the pointer and calling it, calling an anonymous local closure of the right type, or even using withExtendedLifetime(&x) { (ptr: UnsafePointer<T>) in ... }.</span></span><br></div>
</div>
</blockquote><div> </div>
<div>These are all just withUnsafePointer with different spelling.<br></div>
</div>
</blockquote><div> </div>
<div>That's true, but they all have the benefit of not requiring extra stdlib functions. swiftdoc.org lists 36 global functions, a full 4 of which are withUnsafePointer + variants. The existence of the functions also implies that they're necessary to work with pointers (especially the documentation). My suspicion is that nearly all current uses of these functions can be replaced with &x refs with no change in functionality. Even the stdlib only has a handful of uses of withUnsafeMutablePointer (and none at all for withUnsafePointer), and looking through them quickly, it looks like only the ones in public/core/Runtime.swift.gyb require a workaround.<br></div>
<div> </div>
<div>-Kevin</div>
</body>
</html>