> On Oct 7, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Michael Gottesman via swift-dev
> <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> I wonder whether it might make more sense for load [borrow] to be a
>> different instruction.
>> There's a couple reasons for that first. The first is that it's the only
>> load which introduces
>> a scope, which is a really big difference structurally. The second is that
>> it's the only load
>> which returns a non-owned value, which will be a typing difference when we
>> record
>> ownership in the type system.
>
> I am fine with a load_borrow. If this is the only change left that you want
> can I just send out a proposal with that small change and start implementing.
> I am nervous about perfection being the enemy of the good (and I want to
> start implementing this weekend if possible *evil smile*).
There’s a lot in the proposal that makes sense to discuss for completeness but
isn’t motivated by a particular need. Please separate functionality. We only
need load [copy] at first right? When do those need to be promoted to
load_borrow? load [trivial] is an optimization, so that should follow a
functionally complete implementation. load [take] should definitely not exist
until there’s some motivation.
-Andy
_______________________________________________
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
