[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Normalize Slice Types for Unsafe Buffers
atrick at apple.com
Fri Dec 9 13:01:54 CST 2016
> On Dec 9, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> on Thu Dec 08 2016, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu-AT-gmail.com <http://xiaodi.wu-at-gmail.com/>> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> On Dec 8, 2016, at 4:35 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution <
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> Um, Sequence doesn’t have a subscript (or indexes). Sequences are
>>> single-pass. So if this is important, it needs to stay a Collection.
>>> Just because something fulfills one of the requirements of a Collection
>>> does not mean it should be one. It needs to tick all the boxes before its
>>> allowed to be elevated.
>>> But it’s still allowed to have subscripts (UnsafePointer has subscripting
>>> but isn’t a collection) or be multi-pass (strides are multiples but are
>>> only sequences). That’s OK
>>> In this case, yes it’s multi-pass, yes it has a subscript, but no it isn’t
>>> a collection because it doesn’t meet the requirements for slicing i.e. that
>>> indices of the slice be indices of the parent.
>>> (relatedly… it appears this requirement is documented on the concrete
>>> Slice type rather than on Collection… which is a documentation bug we
>>> should fix).
>> If this is indeed a requirement for Collection, then my vote would be for
>> Nate's option #1 and Andy's option #2, to give UnsafeRawBufferPointer a
>> Slice type that fulfills the requirement. It's the smallest change,
>> preserves the use of integer indices, and preserves what Andy stated as the
>> desired use case of making it easy for users to switch out code written for
>> I'm not sure I fully understand yet why Dave finds the idea of Collection
>> conformance fishy,
> Because the memory can easily be already bound to another type than
> UInt8, and there's no obvious reason why UInt8 should be privileged as a
> type you can get out of a raw buffer without binding the memory.
I strongly disagree with that statement. The overwhelmingly common use
case for raw buffers is to view them as a sequence of UInt8 *without*
binding the type. Generally, at the point that you're dealing with a
raw buffer it's impossible to (re)bind memory because you don't know
what type it holds. The reason it's so important to have an
UnsafeRawBufferPointer data type is precisely so that users don't need
mess about with binding memory. It's easy to get that wrong even when
The only reason that UInt8 is special is that when users create
temporary typed buffers for bytes (e.g. they sometimes want a growable
array or just don't want to bother with manual allocation) they always
use UInt8 as the element type.
That said, we could easily divide these concerns into two types as
you suggested. A raw buffer, which doesn't have any special UInt8
features, and a RawBytes collection that handles both buffer slicing
and UInt8 interoperability.
>> but I'm comfortable with a type that's clearly labeled as unsafe not
>> being fully footgun-proof.
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution