or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager.
What goes into a review?
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and contribute to the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
* If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and contribute to the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
Strong +1.
"Header" much better describes the intended purpose of that portion of the buffer: as a way to store whatever pertinent metadata is necessary to manage the actual data being stored in the buffer. "Value" is generic enough (and similar enough in meaning to "Element") to be confusing, or at least largely meaningless.
* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
It's not a big problem, but it's not a big change either, so in the balance, yes.
* 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?
n/a
* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
I read the review, some of the pre-review discussion, and have been poking around the parts of the standard library that use ManagedBuffer (and similar internal-only types) to manage collection storage.
···
On Jul 1, 2016, at 2:53 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote:
More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager.
What goes into a review?
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and contribute to the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
+1
* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
yes.
* 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?
use of the term header matches expectations, while value didn’t.
* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
a relatively thorough reading of the proposal and patch.
···
On Jul 1, 2016, at 2:53 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote:
More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
+1. Echoing what others have already said, this is a much better name.
* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
Yes.
* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
Yes, it improves clarity.
* If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
A quick reading.
···
More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
+1; Header is much more clear than Value in describing the purpose of
the property. I did have to double check the docs to be sure Header
meant what I thought it did---which made me wonder if Metadata would be
a more instructional name, but I do like Header.
* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
change to Swift?
Yes, to me the Element array is the value of the buffer, so Value was a
bad name for this metadata property; Header is a much better name than Value.
* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of
Swift?
Yes, increased clarity.
* If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar
feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
If have not dealt with this on a language level, but I have implemented
similar protocols at a user-framework level and would not use Value to
name this property.
* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a
quick reading, or an in-depth study?
Quick review, not much effort needed as it was simple to see the old
name was unclear and a poor description of the property.
···
On Fri, Jul 01 2016 at 05:53:13 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: