on Sun May 01 2016, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu-AT-gmail.com> wrote: > It's a bad habit of mine, I guess, to err on the side of suggesting > conservative > changes on the assumption that it'll be maximally acceptable. If there's > appetite for a more serious renaming, and as you say these are considered > relatively rarely used, then it's a world of possibility! > > We could do as Shawn suggested and follow precedent in some other languages by > moving these functions out of the global scope. Perhaps these will meet with > some satisfaction: > > ``` > Memory.footprint(of:) > Memory.alignment(of:) > Memory.spacing(of:) > ```
I'd rather have MemoryLayout<T>.size MemoryLayout<T>.alignment MemoryLayout<T>.spacing -Dave > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 21:41 Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > on Sun May 01 2016, Xiaodi Wu <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > on Thu Apr 28 2016, Xiaodi Wu > > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > > We all know and love sizeof(), but given that it's different from its > C > > > counterpart anyway, shouldn't these conform to Swift naming > guidelines? > In > > other > > > words, after SE-0006, shouldn't these names be as follows? > > > > > > ``` > > > size<T>(of: T.Type) > > > size<T>(ofValue: T) > > > stride<T>(of: T.Type) > > > stride<T>(ofValue: T) > > > align<T>(of: T.Type) > > > align<T>(ofValue: T) > > > ``` > > > > > > There are obvious issues with two different things named `stride`, but > IMO > > > that's best addressed by renaming one of them; the real problem is > that > > the word > > > stride is used in two different ways already. Thoughts? > > > > These functions correspond to C and LLVM primitives and we consciously > > kept those names because they are terms of art. > > > > I recognize that this was the intention behind preserving the names > as-is. > The > > thought process behind proposing a renaming was as follows: > > > > * The Swift counterpart to C `sizeof()` is `strideof(_:)`. Thus, > although > the > > *names* are treated as terms of art, not all of them are used to mean > the > art > > for which they are terms (if you will). > > The specific meaning of sizeof in Swift comes from either LLVM or from > SIL, IIRC. It predates me, but it's supposed to correspond to what the > IRGen level of the compiler calls “sizeof.” > > > To reinforce the separation between C primitives and these Swift > > functions, C `offsetof()` has no Swift counterpart. > > Yes, that's part of the reason I'd very much like to choose more > descriptive names if we are going to move away from the current > spellings. moving the parenthesis is a pretty weak cue that this thing > might be slightly different. > > > * A survey of other languages suggests that, as terms of art, these > names > are > > not always treated as a single word but as a phrase, by which I mean > that > the > > preposition "of" can be subject to language-specific naming conventions. > For > > example, in Rust you have `size_of()`, `size_of_val()`, etc.; in the > .NET > > Framework, you have the `Marshal.SizeOf()` method; and even in LLVM you > > apparently have (and this is based just on googling--my level of > familiarity > > with LLVM is low to nonexistent) struct `AlignOf<T>`. > > > > I don't know that > > > > size(of: T.self) > > > > is particularly descriptive usage, and if we were going to change them > > so they didn't look like sizeof, strideof, alignof I'd want to make them > > far more descriptive. E.g. > > > > memoryFootprint(Int.self) > > > > or > > > > bytesRequiredForStorage(Int.self) > > standardByteAlignment(Int.self) > > bytesBetweenArrayElements(Int.self) > > > > etc. > > > > To my mind, `size(of:)` is not moving away from using a term of art but > rather > > following existing precedent in conforming use of the preposition to > > language-specific conventions. > > The same argument could be made for “mapped” and “reduced.” > > > Like you, I would be hesitant to suggest moving away from these terms > > of art altogether. > > You misunderstand me. I'm not hesitant about that at all. What I > dislike is the idea of being close-to-but-not-quite-the-same as the > source terms to which they correspond. The original terms are not > great, and these facilities are seldom used. They can afford to be > longer and more descriptive. > > > I do think, though, that moving the preposition has the bonus of > > visually suggesting however subtly that `size(of:) ` might have a > > Swift-specific twist that makes it not a drop-in equivalent for C > > `sizeof()`. > > I don't think subtlety is a virtue in this case. > > -- > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
