[swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review #2] SE-0101: Reconfiguring sizeof and related functions into a unified MemoryLayout struct

[Gwynne Raskind]

> On Jul 12, 2016, at 18:53, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> 	* What is your evaluation of the proposal?

Very strong +1; cleaning up the global namespace, addressing confusion with usage of these functions, and promoting the concept of the low-level attributes of a type being related to that type (rather than being arbitrarily global truths), are all significant wins for readability, discoverability, and conceptual clarity.

> 	* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?

Definitively. The sizeof() family of functions are neither commonly enough used nor fundamental enough to idiomatic Swift to belong in the global namespace, and having them there adds potentially dangerous confusion for users coming from C, C++, and Objective-C. In particular, "sizeof(T)" almost definitely doesn’t mean what a newcomer to Swift expects, but when encountering "MemoryLayout<T>.size" one is considerably more likely to have at least noticed the documentation of what it means and the fact that ".stride" exists.

> 	* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Very much so. To me, the syntax proposed here is simpler, clearer, and much more in keeping with OO design.

> 	* If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?

The closest equivalent I can think of comes from C++, per std::numeric_limits<T>, std::pointer_traits<T>, std::allocator_traits<T>, etc. While C++ is being typically verbose in its syntax, it successfully represents the type information in object-oriented and unambiguous fashion, and the sheer verbosity aside, I’ve always liked this representation. This proposal is substantially similar in form and at a quick glance at my own Swift code, it adds similar clarity to the intent the code expresses.

> 	* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

A quick reading.

-- Gwynne Raskind
More magic than a mere signature can contain