> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? Generally in support, with two small exceptions:
1. I think the type variants should have the parameter label `of`. `memorySize(of: Int.self)` reads grammatically (other than the hopefully soon-to-be-vestigial `self`); `memorySize(Int.self)` does not. 2. I am not convinced that the `ofValue` variants are valuable enough to keep, although they do help support the (I think necessary, though I could probably be convinced otherwise now that these three all have a `memory` prefix) change to `type(ofValue:)`. (Actually, I'm now considering the idea that these should be `valueSize(of: T.Type)`, etc., since they measure only the size of the immediate value, not any objects that value might reference. But that thought is underdeveloped, so I'm not ready to stand behind it.) > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > to Swift? Yes; these are inconsistent with the API guidelines. > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? Yes. > * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, > how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? I like that it's a little clearer what sort of "size" is meant; people are unlikely to imagine this will tell them an array's length, for instance. > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? Quick reading. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
