[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Renaming sizeof, sizeofValue, strideof, strideofValue
dabrahams at apple.com
Sun Jun 5 19:33:04 CDT 2016
on Wed Jun 01 2016, Xiaodi Wu <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>
> Upon accepting SE-0098, the core team renamed the proposed stdlib function from dynamicType() to type(of:). They write, "The
> core team recognizes that this means that we should probably resyntax the existing sizeof/strideof functions, but that should be
> a follow-on discussion."
> Follow on discussion started. Have at it.
> See: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/15830
> To summarize the previous discussion:
> 1. Per Joe Groff, although sizeof() and friends are treated as terms-of-art, these names were lifted straight from C and do not correspond to
> anything named "sizeof" in LLVM.
> 2. There are issues with using a name such as stride(of:), because stride(...) already means something else in the stdlib; moreover, size(of:) isn't
> the best name for something that doesn't do what its C namesake does; therefore, larger changes to the naming were suggested.
> 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()
I'd also be willing to see memoryLayout(T.self).size, if pressed.
> 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.
I would be happy to hear from people about their use-cases that become
utterly unreadable when
is replaced by
But if we don't have strong evidence that such use-cases exist, I am
strongly biased toward removing those functions. These incredibly
low-level facilities are seldom used, even within the standard library.
It would take a very strong argument to convince me that the exposed API
should be broader than absolutely necessary in this area.
> * * *
> If we take inspiration from type(of:), then it's actually sizeofValue(), etc., that should be renamed size(of:), etc. Also, a fun tidbit is that what's
> currently called sizeof(), etc.--the ones that take types rather than values--are actually not very good candidates for having parameter labels,
> because it's OK to write `sizeof(Int)`, but one must currently write `size(of: Int.self)` when the function has a label.
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
More information about the swift-evolution