<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 8, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Jacob Bandes-Storch <<a href="mailto:jtbandes@gmail.com" class="">jtbandes@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Joe Groff <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:jgroff@apple.com" target="_blank" class="">jgroff@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">COpaquePointer is IMO a vestige that should be eliminated completely. We'd ultimately like to import opaque C structs as distinct, non-constructible types in Swift, so that they can still be well-typed UnsafePointer<OpaqueThing> types in Swift.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Joe</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That would be nice. But there is still the "context pointer" use case, where conversions to/from UnsafePointer<Void> are needed. Would it make sense for the Unmanaged type to deal in UnsafePointer<Void>, rather than COpaquePointer?</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I think so, yeah.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:37 AM, John McCall <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:rjmccall@apple.com" target="_blank" class="">rjmccall@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">- Add implicit conversion from COpaquePointer to Unsafe(Mutable)Pointer<Void>, and/or vice versa.<br class=""></div></blockquote></span></div><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- Even better, add implicit conversion from Unmanaged<T> to COpaquePointer or UnsafePointer<Void>, behaving the way toOpaque() currently does. Also, replace Unmanaged.fromOpaque() with an initializer Unmanaged(_: UnsafePointer<Void>).</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span>We try very hard to avoid adding new implicit conversions.</div><span class=""><font color="#888888" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">John.</div></font></span></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My impression is that Unmanaged is pretty much only used for cases like this. It seems a bit redundant given that UnsafePointer exists, and converting between them is tedious as a user. Would it make sense to move the passUnretained/takeRetainedValue/etc. functions onto UnsafePointer?</div></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">It possibly makes sense for the methods to exist on both Unmanaged and UnsafePointer<Void>, since it's common to cross over from the managed to unmanaged world both ways.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Joe</div></body></html>