[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0184: Unsafe[Mutable][Raw][Buffer]Pointer: add missing methods, adjust existing labels for clarity, and remove deallocation size
atrick at apple.com
Tue Sep 5 11:31:58 CDT 2017
I think we’ve agreed to a few minor updates to this proposal. Since there hasn’t been any other feedback on the thread it may be worth posting an amended proposal so we all know what we’ve agreed on.
> On Sep 3, 2017, at 8:23 PM, Andrew Trick via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2017, at 8:05 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com <mailto:xiaodi.wu at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> If we use byte offset, then the at parameter in UnsafeMutableRawPointer should be removed, since pointer arithmetic can be used instead (just like with UnsafeMutablePointer).
>> I agree that it seems quite sensible to remove the ‘at’ parameter altogether from the UMRP method.
> No code in tree or on github is using the `at` argument. I think it can be removed. A fixit should still be possible.
>> Not convinced moving the at: argument to come before the as: argument is worth it in terms of source breakage.
>> Since much of this proposal involves shuffling and relabeling arguments, I’d argue it’s better to break slight more source in one go for the optimal API than to break slightly less for a slightly less optimal API, no? (This is assuming there is agreement that ‘at:as:’ is less prone to misinterpretation than ‘as:at:’.)
> To be clear, we’re just talking about UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer.initializeMemory now, so this is purely additive.
> I think the label needs to be `atByteOffset`, and placing it before `as` makes a lot of sense because it no longer depends on the type’s stride.
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution