[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Renaming sizeof, sizeofValue, strideof, strideofValue

[John McCall]

> On Jun 2, 2016, at 11:22 AM, Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 12:01 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
>>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com <mailto:xiaodi.wu at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Well, as I understand it, it's not actually possible to write your own type(of:), so we're going from a "magic" property to a "magic" function at least for now.
>>> 
>>> No, but you *can* write `func foo<T>(_ t: T)` which accepts any value (you *cannot* write a property that is available for all properties - that would require the ability to write `extension Any`.  This is the distinction I am making.  Of course the implementation is compiler magic no matter how we express it syntactically.  But we can make it *appear* just like it might if the implementation *wasn’t* compiler magic.  That makes it fit into the language better IMO and was the biggest motivator for changing `dynamicType`.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm most alarmed that one implication of the MemoryLayout proposal is loss of the `ofValue` family of functions. These functions don't fit with the design: imagine, what is `MemoryLayout<Double>.size(ofValue: Float(42))`? But the response seems to be that these functions don't seem necessary at all and should be removed. "I don't see a use for it" is an insufficient justification for a feature removal. Looking to other languages, C# has sizeof as a static property but tellingly offers the equivalent of sizeofValue (well, strideofValue) as a function in a different module. Essentially every other C-family language that exposes pointers to the user offers both of and ofValue equivalents. The question is, how does a user with existing code using sizeofValue() migrate to Swift 3? I do not see a viable answer with the MemoryLayout design.
>>> 
>>> Going with MemoryLayout *does not* mean we would have to give up the value functions if we don’t want to:
>>> 
>>> struct MemoryLayout<T> {
>>>     init() {}
>>>     init(t: T) { /* throw away the value */ }
>>>     
>>>     // we could omit the static properties and require 
>>>     // writing MemoryLayout<Int>() if we don’t like the duplication
>>>     static let size: Int
>>>     static let spacing: Int
>>>     static let alignment: Int
>>> 
>>>     let size: Int
>>>     let spacing: Int
>>>     let alignment: Int
>>> }
>>> 
>>> let size = MemoryLayout<Int>.size
>>> let sizeOfValue = MemoryLayout(42).size
>> 
>> There's no good reason for this type to be generic.  It should be non-generic and require the use of the instance properties.
> 
> Dave's initial suggestion was generic and Joe suggested static properties.  I suppose it doesn't have to be generic if we pass the type directly to the initializer, but that design would eliminate the possibility of inferring the type from a value (which some people seem to want to retain).
> 
> I didn't mean to advocate either way about adding a value initializer and instance properties.  I was only trying to show that it is *possible* to do that if we want to preserve the ofValue capabilities.
> 
>> 
>> It's actively harmful for this type to appear to be computed from a value.  The layout is not in any way tied to the dynamic type of the value — for example, it is not the instance layout of the most-derived class or the value layout of the dynamic type of an existential.  
> 
> Understood, but that same problem exists for the current ofValue operations doesn't it? We can discuss removing them (I am not opposed to that), but that is independent of whether we should use a MemoryLayout struct as opposed to free functions.

I'm not trying to dictate the entire design.  I'm saying that, if you're going to have a layout structure, I see no reason for it to be generic, and you should absolutely not make the primary way of constructing it be implicitly value-based.

I still think the value-based APIs are misleading and that it would be better to ask people to just use a type explicitly.

> Adding the label will eliminate the potential for confusion about type vs metatype.  Wanting to know the size of the metatype is probably extremely rare, but there is not reason to prohibit it.

I agree that the label makes the problem better.

John.

> 
>> 
>> John.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:03 AM Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com <mailto:matthew at anandabits.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 2, 2016, at 12:27 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Patrick Smith <pgwsmith at gmail.com <mailto:pgwsmith at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> I really like this idea. This IMO is lower level functionality than `type(of:)` (née dynamicType), so I think it makes sense for it to be grouped under its own domain, the MemoryLayout type.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Plus MemoryLayout can be extended with new convenience methods.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’m fine with those old methods being removed, but I never use them so! Is it the same as calling type(of:) then using that with MemoryLayout? I imagine they could be fixit’d easily, and that they compile down to the same underlying code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm actually souring to the idea. It goes in the diametrically opposite direction from dynamicType. There, something was changed from being property-like to being function-like. Here, Dave's proposal would take something that's a function and turn it into a property. Hmm.
>>>> 
>>>> That's not a fair comparison though.  With dynamicType we removed a "magic" property visible on all types, which isn't something you can write and turned it into a function (which is obviously something you can write).  
>>>> 
>>>> Dave's MemoryLayout creates a new type to bundle together related items which makes their semantic relationship more clear.  It also receives the type via a generic argument rather than a function argument and makes the properties static.  That is more representative of what is actually happening and could help to prevent confusion.  
>>>> 
>>>> If we really need an 'ofValue' option that infers T from a value the properties on MemoryLayout could also be made available as instance properties and it could have an initializer that accepts an instance to T and throws the value away.  However, I'm not at all convinced this is necessary.
>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2 Jun 2016, at 3:05 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. Dave A. and others expressed the opinion that these should probably not be global functions; his preference was for:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>> MemoryLayout<T>.size // currently sizeof()
>>>>>> MemoryLayout<T>.spacing // currently strideof()
>>>>>> MemoryLayout<T>.alignment // currently alignof()
>>>>>> ```
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3. Dave A. proposed that sizeofValue(), strideofValue(), and alignofValue() are better off removed altogether. I don't know if people are going to be happy about this idea.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160602/2b4e0f4c/attachment.html>