> On Jun 21, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Dave Abrahams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > on Tue Jun 21 2016, Erica Sadun <erica-AT-ericasadun.com > <http://erica-at-ericasadun.com/>> wrote: > >>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:06 PM, Dave Abrahams <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> It's just that I don't think this part of the library API is important >>> enough, to enough people, that this readability is worth the additional >>> exposed surface area (and further exposure later on—I can easily imagine >>> a “minimumAlignment”). I would *much* rather keep this stuff corralled >>> in a single namespace where it can all be found. >> >> See? That, I totally get. >> >>> I think you represented it just fine, thanks... I just don't think >>> you're accounting for the big picture. These APIs are not like “map,” >>> “filter,” and “Dictionary.” They're specialty items that you should >>> only reach for when performing unsafe operations, mostly inside the guts >>> of higher-level constructs. >>> >>> -- >>> Dave >> >> Would you like me to edit it and flip the proposal then? Put the >> MemoryLayout in as primary, mine as secondary, and add in text to >> explain that the motivation is less usability than serving an unsafe >> API with minimal surface area? > > Well, the review has already started, so I don't think we ought to go > inverting the proposal now. Let's see how the discussion plays out. If > at the end, you agree with my point-of-view, you can say so and the > review manager and core team will take that into account.
No, I'd do edits on a gist page not in-place -- E
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
