Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 12:05 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >>> Upon accepting SE-0098, the core team renamed the proposed stdlib function >>> from dynamicType() to type(of:). They write, "The core team recognizes >>> that this means that we should probably resyntax the existing >>> sizeof/strideof functions, but that should be a follow-on discussion." >>> >>> Follow on discussion started. Have at it. >> >> See: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/15830 > > To summarize the previous discussion: > > 1. Per Joe Groff, although sizeof() and friends are treated as terms-of-art, > these names were lifted straight from C and do not correspond to anything > named "sizeof" in LLVM. > > 2. There are issues with using a name such as stride(of:), because > stride(...) already means something else in the stdlib; moreover, size(of:) > isn't the best name for something that doesn't do what its C namesake does; > therefore, larger changes to the naming were suggested. > > 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() > ``` Thanks for the summary. I missed the original thread. I think I like this approach despite its verbosity. Will give it a little bit more thought... > > 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. > > * * * > > If we take inspiration from type(of:), then it's actually sizeofValue(), > etc., that should be renamed size(of:), etc. Also, a fun tidbit is that > what's currently called sizeof(), etc.--the ones that take types rather than > values--are actually not very good candidates for having parameter labels, > because it's OK to write `sizeof(Int)`, but one must currently write > `size(of: Int.self)` when the function has a label. > > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution