[swift-evolution] SE-0138 UnsafeBytes

Drew Crawford drew at sealedabstract.com
Sat Sep 3 17:36:46 CDT 2016

On September 2, 2016 at 2:36:43 AM, Andrew Trick (atrick at apple.com) wrote:

After thinking about this for a moment, I like the approach of extending UnsafeBytes with release-mode bounds checked versions of subscript, load, and storeBytes.
I agree with this, I think it's mostly a question of naming and defaults.  My concern here is letting a swift developer accidentally write heartbleed, which we can't actually prevent, but we can make it harder.


1.  There should be clear consistency in the checked-ness of the API surface.  Agree that checked iterator makes no sense, but I think the most important thing is to avoid creating a job interview trivia game where `set` is checked but `store` is unchecked, spot the bug in this function.

2.  For consistency with UnsafeBufferPointer it may make the most sense to just ship unchecked or ship an opt-in checked wrapper.  I believe however that the existing precedent is all wrong on this point, and I'd like to see us revisit this question across both interfaces in Swift 4, but I don't want to lay out a whole case here that should be its own thread.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160903/1aa5ef21/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list