[swift-evolution] MemoryLayout for a value

[Dave Abrahams]

on Thu Aug 04 2016, Dave Abrahams <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> on Thu Aug 04 2016, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> Could I suggest an alternative? It's conservative in that it mimics the
>>> relationships we had before the proposal was implemented and also maintains
>>> the simplicity of the caseless enum:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> extension MemoryLayout {
>>>   static func size(ofValue _: T) -> Int { return MemoryLayout.size }
>>>   // etc.
>>> }
>>> ```
>>
>> I like this API.  I think given all the alternatives that we explored,
>> it is better than those.  I also think that it nicely avoids the
>> following issue with the proposed MemoryLayout.of(type(of:
>> someExpression)).size syntax.
>>
>> Imagine that you have a value whose static type differs from the
>> dynamic type.  For example, a protocol existential:
>>
>> protocol P {}
>> extension Int : P {}
>> var x: P = 10
>>
>> The question is, what does MemoryLayout.of(type(of: x)).size compute,
>> size of the existential box, or the size of an Int instance?  The
>> semantics of 'type(of:)' are "return the dynamic type", so the
>> straightforward conclusion is that MemoryLayout.of(type(of: x)).size
>> returns the size of the dynamic type instance, of Int.
>>
>> What actually happens is that 'type(of: x)' returns a dynamic value of
>> 'Int.self', statically typed as 'P.Type'.  So P gets deduced for the
>> generic parameter of MemoryLayout, and MemoryLayout.of(type(of:
>> x)).size returns the size of the protocol box.
>>
>> I think due to this complex interaction, using type(of:) might lead to
>> confusing code, and thus I like Xiaodi's approach better.
>>
>> Dmitri
>
> Okay, I'm convinced; that's what we should do.

Xiaodi, not to put you on the spot or anything... but how would you like
to write a proposal and create a pull request for the changes to the
standard library? ;-)

-- 
-Dave