COpaquePointer is IMO a vestige that should be eliminated completely. We'd ultimately like to import opaque C structs as distinct, non-constructible types in Swift, so that they can still be well-typed UnsafePointer<OpaqueThing> types in Swift.
-Joe
···
On Dec 8, 2015, at 12:26 AM, Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
One hopes to avoid COpaquePointer and Unsafe(Mutable)Pointer, but in practice I've had occasion to use them a few times.
Things that are nice:
- Unmanaged.passUnretained/takeRetained/etc. which make memory management semantics explicit.
Things I've been frustrated by:
- An API takes UnsafeMutablePointer<Void>, but Unmanaged.toOpaque() returns a COpaquePointer.
- An API gives me UnsafeMutablePointer<Void>, but Unmanaged.fromOpaque() takes a COpaquePointer.
In practice, I end up with monstrosities like:
Unmanaged.passRetained(CFCopyDescription(Unmanaged<AnyObject>.fromOpaque(COpaquePointer($0)).takeUnretainedValue()))
I think a few things could help:
- Phase out COpaquePointer in favor of UnsafePointer<Void> (is this already happening?)
- Add implicit conversion from COpaquePointer to Unsafe(Mutable)Pointer<Void>, and/or vice versa.
- Even better, add implicit conversion from Unmanaged<T> to COpaquePointer or UnsafePointer<Void>, behaving the way toOpaque() currently does. Also, replace Unmanaged.fromOpaque() with an initializer Unmanaged(_: UnsafePointer<Void>).
What are others' experiences? Would it be feasible/favorable to have some of these conversions?
Jacob Bandes-Storch
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution