<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Patrick Smith <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:pgwsmith@gmail.com" target="_blank">pgwsmith@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Yes but, if they weren’t functions now, what would be the best design?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Dave&#39;s suggestions then were made in the context of a language that had `.dynamicType`. The question today is how best to align these functions with `type(of:)`. If we were to ignore this context, I&#39;m not sure on what basis we could judge whether a property or function is &#39;best&#39; for these facilities.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>How many Swift developers will be using this functionality? Less than 1%? I trust Dave’s judgement because he is in that small group.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would caution against this assumption. I&#39;m not a particularly advanced developer by any stretch of the imagination, and I&#39;ve been using `strideof()` plenty of times while doing some math with Accelerate.framework and Metal buffers. That said, Dave&#39;s in a very small group indeed, the group that wrote these functions to start with.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class="h5"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 2 Jun 2016, at 3:27 PM, Xiaodi Wu &lt;<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" target="_blank">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Patrick Smith <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:pgwsmith@gmail.com" target="_blank">pgwsmith@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>I really like this idea. This IMO is lower level functionality than `type(of:)` (née dynamicType), so I think it makes sense for it to be grouped under its own domain, the MemoryLayout type.</div><div><br></div><div>Plus MemoryLayout can be extended with new convenience methods.</div><div><br></div><div>I’m fine with those old methods being removed, but I never use them so! Is it the same as calling type(of:) then using that with MemoryLayout? I imagine they could be fixit’d easily, and that they compile down to the same underlying code.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m actually souring to the idea. It goes in the diametrically opposite direction from dynamicType. There, something was changed from being property-like to being function-like. Here, Dave&#39;s proposal would take something that&#39;s a function and turn it into a property. Hmm.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 2 Jun 2016, at 3:05 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution &lt;<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br><div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">2. Dave A. and others expressed the opinion that these should probably not be global functions; his preference was for:</div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">```</div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">MemoryLayout&lt;T&gt;.size // currently sizeof()</div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">MemoryLayout&lt;T&gt;.spacing // currently strideof()</div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">MemoryLayout&lt;T&gt;.alignment // currently alignof()</div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">```</div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">3. Dave A. proposed that sizeofValue(), strideofValue(), and alignofValue() are better off removed altogether. I don&#39;t know if people are going to be happy about this idea.</div></div></blockquote></div><br></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>