Yes but, if they weren’t functions now, what would be the best design? How many Swift developers will be using this functionality? Less than 1%? I trust Dave’s judgement because he is in that small group.
> On 2 Jun 2016, at 3:27 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Patrick Smith <pgwsm...@gmail.com > <mailto:pgwsm...@gmail.com>> wrote: > 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. > > Plus MemoryLayout can be extended with new convenience methods. > > 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. > > I'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's proposal would take > something that's a function and turn it into a property. Hmm. >> On 2 Jun 2016, at 3:05 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> 2. Dave A. and others expressed the opinion that these should probably not >> be global functions; his preference was for: >> >> ``` >> MemoryLayout<T>.size // currently sizeof() >> MemoryLayout<T>.spacing // currently strideof() >> MemoryLayout<T>.alignment // currently alignof() >> ``` >> >> 3. Dave A. proposed that sizeofValue(), strideofValue(), and alignofValue() >> are better off removed altogether. I don't know if people are going to be >> happy about this idea. > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
