...because it is apparently more efficient in some cases. Technically
we don't do this in ALL places, because it would be unfortunate if
the implementation of _successorInPlace() were self recursive :-)
At DaveA's suggestion, I took a mostly mechanical approach to this:
pointers and numeric types start using += 1, and indexes use
i = i.successor(). The index model is likely to be revised in
Swift 3 anyway, so micro-optimizing this code syntactically isn't
super important.
There is some performance concern of this patch, since some
in-place succesor operations are more efficient than
i = i.successor(). The one that seems particularly at issue is the
instance in the implementation of partition(), which I changed to
use i._successorInPlace(). If other instances lead to a perf issue,
they can be changed to use that as well.
Remove these standard library types in favor of (T) -> () closures.
It was originally believed that generic optimizations would make these
types profitable, however:
// FIXME: Insert benchmarks here.
rdar://problem/21663799
Swift SVN r29927
This came out of today's language review meeting.
The intent is to match #available with the attribute
that describes availability.
This is a divergence from Objective-C.
Swift SVN r28484
Retire the old components now that the new ones have passed API review.
<rdar://20406937> covers the migration fallout of this change.
Swift SVN r27092
Retire the old components now that the new ones have passed API review.
<rdar://20406937> covers the migration fallout of this change.
Swift SVN r27081
Retire the old components now that the new ones have passed API review.
<rdar://20406937> covers the migration fallout of this change.
Swift SVN r26904
The standard library has grown significantly, and we need a new
directory structure that clearly reflects the role of the APIs, and
allows future growth.
See stdlib/{public,internal,private}/README.txt for more information.
Swift SVN r25876
