[swift-evolution] Pitch: Improved Swift pointers

[Taylor Swift]

How would you feel about:

struct UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer
{

--- static func allocate(count:Int) -> UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer
+++ static func allocate(bytes:Int, alignedTo:Int) ->
UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer
    func deallocate()
+++ func bindMemory<Element>(to:Element.Type, capacity:Int)
+++ func copy(from:UnsafeRawBufferPointer, bytes:Int)
+++ func initializeMemory<Element>(as:Element.Type, at:Int, count:Int,
to:Element)
+++ func initializeMemory<Element>(as:Element.Type,
from:UnsafeBufferPointer<Element>, count:Int)
+++ func moveInitializeMemory<Element>(as:Element.Type,
from:UnsafeMutableBufferPointer<Element>, count:Int
}

“bytes”    = 8 bit quantities (don’t @ me we’re assuming 8 bit bytes)
“capacity” = strided quantities, not assumed to be initialized
“count”    = strided quantities, assumed to be initialized

It’s also worth nothing that a lot of what the proposal tries to add to
UnsafeBufferPointer is already present in UnsafeMutableRawPointer like a
sizeless deallocate() and a sizeless copyBytes(from:).

Although I’m not sure what’s going on with the latter one
<https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/unsafemutablerawbufferpointer/2635415-copybytes>…lol
swiftdoc


On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Jul 13, 2017, at 10:30 PM, Taylor Swift <kelvin13ma at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I’m confused I thought we were talking about the naming choices for the
> argument labels in those functions. I think defining and abiding by
> consistent meanings for `count`, `capacity`, and `bytes` is a good idea,
> and it’s part of what this proposal tries to accomplish. Right now half the
> time we use `count` to refer to “bytes” and half the time we use it to
> refer to “instances”. The same goes for the word “capacity”. This is all
> laid out in the document:
>
> “““
> *Finally, the naming and design of some UnsafeMutableRawPointer members
> deserves to be looked at. The usage of capacity, bytes, and count as
> argument labels is wildly inconsistent and confusing.
> In copyBytes(from:count:), count refers to the number of bytes, while
> in initializeMemory<T>(as:at:count:to:) and initializeMemory<T>(as:from:count:), count refers
> to the number of strides.
> Meanwhile bindMemory<T>(to:capacity:) uses capacity to refer to this
> quantity. The always-problematic deallocate(bytes:alignedTo) method
> and allocate(bytes:alignedTo:) type methods use bytes to refer to
> byte-quantities. Adding to the
> confusion, UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer offers an allocate(count:) type
> method (the same signature method we’re trying to add
> to UnsafeMutableBufferPointer), except the count in this method refers to
> bytes. This kind of API naming begets stride bugs and makes Swift
> needlessly difficult to learn.*
> ”””
>
> The only convenience methods this proposal is trying to add is the
> functionality on the buffer pointer types. There seems to be broad support
> for adding this functionality as no one has really opposed that part of the
> proposal yet. Any other new methods like `UnsafeMutablePointer.assign(to:)`
> are there for API consistency.
>
> This proposal also calls for getting rid of one of those “redundant
> initializers” :)
>
>
> Since we’re not bike-shedding the specifics yet, I’ll just give you some
> background.
>
> We would ultimately like APIs that allocate and initialize in one go. It’s
> important that the current lower-level (dangerous) APIs make a clear
> distinction between initialized and uninitialized memory to avoid confusing
> them with future (safer) APIs. `capacity` always refers to memory that may
> be uninitialized. I think that’s very clear and helpful.
>
> In the context of pointers `count` should always be in strides. For raw
> pointers, that happens to be the same as as `bytes`.
>
> I initially proposed copy(bytes:from:), but someone thought that `bytes`
> in this particular context did not properly convey the "count of bytes" as
> opposed to the source of the bytes. You’re right, that’s inconsistent with
> allocate/deallocate(bytes:), because allocateBytes(count:) would be silly.
> Just be aware that the inconsistency is a result of over-thinking and
> excessive bike shedding to the detriment of something that looks nice and
> is easy to remember.
>
> I should also point out that the inconsistencies in functionality across
> pointer types, in terms of collection support and other convenience, is
> also known but was deliberately stripped from proposals as “additive”.
>
> -Andy
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170714/fa30a4a3/attachment.html>