[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0101: Rename sizeof and related functions to comply with API Guidelines

[Dave Abrahams]

on Thu Jun 30 2016, John McCall <rjmccall-AT-apple.com> wrote:

>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> on Thu Jun 30 2016, Matthew Johnson <matthew-AT-anandabits.com <http://matthew-at-anandabits.com/>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>
>>>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 6:59 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 5:47 PM, James Berry <jberry at rogueorbit.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 4:05 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>> on Thu Jun 30 2016, Erica Sadun <erica-AT-ericasadun.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrahams at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I mentioned this in a comment on the gist already, but I'm really not
>>>>>>>>> digging the "array" in `arraySpacing`. We've already moved from top-level
>>>>>>>>> "stride" to "memory layout spacing," gaining plenty of clarity. I'm
>>>>>>>>> skeptical that the "array" adds anything more. Moreover, it muddies the
>>>>>>>>> waters by mentioning a specific type (Array) in a context where you're
>>>>>>>>> querying the memory layout properties of another type.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OK, I agree with that.  If we have “alignment” rather than
>>>>>>>> “defaultAlignment,” I suppose we can have plain “spacing.”
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No way to last-second sell you on interval rather than spacing?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you can explain why it's better.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> // Returns the least possible interval between distinct instances of
>>>>>>> /// `T` in memory.  The result is always positive.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For me, “interval” doesn't go with “size” and “alignment,” which are all
>>>>>> about physical distances and locations.  There are all kinds of
>>>>>> “intervals,” e.g. time intervals.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hmm. Sounds like stride to me. stride or byteStride?
>>>>> 
>>>>> James
>>>> 
>>>> FAQ: "Why aren't you using the obvious phrase `stride` for something that clearly 
>>>> returns the memory stride?"
>>>> 
>>>> ANSWER: "As stride already has a well-established meaning in the standard library,
>>>> this proposal changes the name to spacing, providing a simple but correct name that
>>>> works well enough in its intended use. Measuring memory is sufficiently esoteric
>>>> that we prefer to reserve `stride` for a more common use case."
>>> 
>>> Counter: some words have more than one well established meaning when
>>> used in different contexts.  'spacing' isn't too bad here (much better
>>> than 'arraySpacing') but sticking to the term of art 'stride' would be
>>> best IMO.  As James mentioned, spacing implies empty space *between*
>>> items whereas stride matches the meaning of this property *exactly*
>>> (which is why it is the term of art).
>>> 
>>> If a programmer can't distinguish between a 'stride' property on
>>> MemoryLayout and the 'stride' function they probably have no business
>>> doing anything which requires use of MemoryLayout in the first place.
>> 
>> I don't believe that “stride” *is* the accepted term of art for this
>> meaning.  I never heard of the idea of types having an intrinsic
>> “stride” until I arrived on the Swift project.  That usage came from
>> “strideof.”  
>> 
>> If you all swear up and down that you've been talking about “the stride
>> of a type” for more than 2 years, I won't fight you on this.
>> Otherwise... well, I still won't fight; I'm being crushed by an
>> avalanche of bikesheds and I can't muster the energy ;->... but I'll
>> forever be plagued by doubts about the name.
>
> As the person who originally picked "stride" here, I agree that I've never
> heard of people talking about the "stride" of a type; people talk about striding
> over an array, and they talk about the size of one's stride, and that size
> can be measured in bytes.  That's all I was thinking.
>
> However, I was just picking a name for an internal implementation concept;
> I did not expect it to be used in the standard library.
>
> I don't really like "spacing"; it sounds too much like a synonym for "padding",
> i.e. the amount of empty space between elements rather than the total amount
> of space for each element.  But I don't mean to re-open wounds; if people
> have settled on "spacing", have at it.

Better names are always welcome if you can come up with one.

-- 
Dave