Re: [swift-dev] Continuation-based versus nested-function-based materializeForSet

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 3:32 PM, John McCall wrote: > >> On Oct 31, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Joe Groff via swift-dev >> wrote: >> We currently abstract over mutable property accesses using what I’ll call a >> continuation-based model–the materializeForSet

Re: [swift-dev] Continuation-based versus nested-function-based materializeForSet

> On Nov 2, 2016, at 11:38 AM, John McCall wrote: > >> On Nov 2, 2016, at 9:05 AM, Joe Groff via swift-dev >> wrote: >>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 9:23 PM, Slava Pestov wrote: >>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Jordan Rose via

Re: [swift-dev] Continuation-based versus nested-function-based materializeForSet

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 9:23 PM, Slava Pestov wrote: > >> >> On Nov 1, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Jordan Rose via swift-dev >> wrote: >> >> - Does this help us with the nested dictionary CoW problem? >> `foo["bar"]["baz"] += 1` > > My understanding is that

Re: [swift-dev] Continuation-based versus nested-function-based materializeForSet

> On Oct 31, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Joe Groff via swift-dev > wrote: > We currently abstract over mutable property accesses using what I’ll call a > continuation-based model–the materializeForSet accessor is called before an > inout access, and returns a continuation callback

Re: [swift-dev] Continuation-based versus nested-function-based materializeForSet

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 11:00 AM, Jordan Rose wrote: > > I like the idea; it makes more sense to me than our current model (which > feels more like a plain callback than a continuation to me). Some things that > occurred to me when reading this: > > - This seems like

[swift-dev] Continuation-based versus nested-function-based materializeForSet

We currently abstract over mutable property accesses using what I’ll call a continuation-based model–the materializeForSet accessor is called before an inout access, and returns a continuation callback that must be called when the inout access is completed. I think a nested-function-based