<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 Jan 23, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 23, 2016, at 11:38 AM, T.J. Usiyan <<a href="mailto:griotspeak@gmail.com" class="">griotspeak@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">I agree that the need to immediately wrap in a BufferPointer is awkward. I've been consistently thrown by the fact that we specify how many items to allocate on the 'single' pointers, though.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Definitely. It would make sense to me if UnsafeMutablePointer's allocation and deallocation APIs worked only for single values, and UnsafeMutableBufferPointer provided similar APIs to allocate and deallocate arrays.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>I agree, that makes a lot of sense.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><br class=""></body></html>