[swift-users] Why does the withUnsafeMutableBufferPointer closure take an inout parameter?

[Chris Lattner]

> On Oct 13, 2017, at 7:40 PM, Andrew Trick via swift-users <swift-users at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:52 AM, Geordie Jay via swift-users <swift-users at swift.org <mailto:swift-users at swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Guillaume Lessard via swift-users <swift-users at swift.org <mailto:swift-users at swift.org>> schrieb am Mi. 11. Okt. 2017 um 23:49:
>> A lot of the MutableCollection implementation is in protocol extensions (swapAt, for example.)
>> 
>> Should an additional version be written just for the Unsafe*BufferPointer types?
>> 
>> Makes sense to me, given the examples above. It doesn’t seem to be a high priority task though, and one one suited to a contributor pull request rather than taking resources away from the core team.
>> 
>> Would this kind of change need to go through swift evolution or is it a “no brainer”?
>> 
>> Geordie
> 
> I’ll just point out that it’s already the case that methods defined in Unsafe*BufferPointer that write to memory are “nonmutating”. So I think it’s both a “no brainer” and needs to go through evolution.

I’m not familiar with the specifics of this “proposal” but if it really is just moving something obvious from being a mutating member to a nonmutating member, then I’m sure the core team can find a fast-path way to accept it without a formal review period.

-Chris


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-users/attachments/20171013/250dd5e6/attachment.html>