.Net Foundation Design Reviews, 4 Feb 2020

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: .NET Design Review: Quick Reviews

Description

00:00:00 - Approved: Add an API to perform streaming transcoding https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/30260#issuecomment-582050875
00:23:34 - Approved: SetCreationTime, SetLastAccessTime, SetLastWriteTime Should not open a new stream to obtain a SafeFileHandle https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/20234#issuecomment-582053400
00:29:38 - Approved: Add bit manipulation methods to Interlocked class https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/23819#issuecomment-582059179
00:43:04 - Approved: Interlocked.CompareExchange missing for uint, ulong and (if possible) general structs. https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/24694#issuecomment-582063204
00:52:11 - Approved: One-shot PEM reader https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/29588#issuecomment-582069797
01:07:31 - Approved: Mark Write7BitEncodedInt and Read7BitEncodedInt as public https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/24473#issuecomment-582076029
01:22:15 - Approved: Easy reference equality comparer API https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/27683#issuecomment-582080375

A

All right so now we should be live. So if you like, let.

B

Me know, anyway, from the chat for moment, so we can.

A

C

Then it's out of this one Levi seems to edited it I assume you have contacts I do you can just hit that link and we'll go straight to the API proposal.

C

It's just a comment here somewhere.

C

Yep, that's it so, basically, as the asp net scheme has a scenario where they have a stream, that's in one encoding, for instance, utf-8, and they want to turn it into a stream. That's and another encoding like ship, jaws or something along those lines.

C

There are api s-- to do this right now going from fighter rated by Durant, but there's not an API to do in going from stream district and they need an API that can do stream the stream, because they're dealing with streaming data like they don't buffer the entire orquestra response into memory.

C

So the proposal here is to introduce a type transcoding stream, which just saw class a stream, and you say from and to or you give it a string to rap and an encoding from that I'm encoding too, and then you can read from it right to it. Do whatever you need to do.

C

This is actually not all that different than the perfect or transpose firms in terms of theory.

D

Know whatever gets it right, yeah.

C

So the idea is, if you're rapping, so this is the outer screen when you wrap an inner stream and then write to the outer stream, will decode using the outer encoding and then re-encode using the inner encoding and then write to the inner stream or, if you're, reading the opposite. Transformation takes place.

C

Say this is one more time when you write to the inner Street. So when you write to the outer string, okay, we decode using the outer encoding, that's specified as parameter there. Then we re encode using the inner encoding and then write that new data to the input stream or when you're reading the office of transformation happens. So when you're reading from the output stream. The first thing we do is we read from the input stream, because this is rapper. We decode using the inner encoding.

C

We re encode using the outer encoding, and then we return that data from the transcoding stream read so outer I'm floating and inner encoding or outer Stream encoding. It.

D

Yes, screaming yeah.

C

Correct okay, then we.

D

C

It yeah by the use overstream little over 1000 years, so there are api's today to do it. Just over straight-up byte array, byte array go from one encoding to another, and that's great, if you have all of the data already in memory, but the asp.net team in particular doesn't have all of the data already there they're streaming the data, the distal. At the end of the case where you read for cave, you happen to dis little like.

A

That you'll get there, so one of one.

C

Of the other scenarios for this is they were using the system text, JSON library, which is utf-8 only the system text. Json library, has the ability to parse over streams of data. Well, that means the incoming data needs to be in utf-8, but what, if the actual HTTP request, is not in utf-8 what it's? If what, if it's in, like big, five or 50, is or something someone needs to do that conversion before handing it to assistant education?

C

One way to do it is to read the entire thing into memory, convert one giant, byte array to another biter and then run it through system text Jason. This is a mechanism or you don't have to load the whole thing into memory, because you can do it screaming.

E

The bike to binary and word what coding is it? Yes,.

C

That API is encoding, dot, convert it's a static method, but again it's only beta rated by the RAM. It.

F

Makes sense in the from the perspective of ASP, but how many other people actually need this.

C

Presumably the HTTP stack system that HTTP might need this. If you do have a if you do have a mechanism that links system text Jason with any of the HTTP request/response types yeah.

D

C

You're going to need this too, so what a my name is version. The.

D

Just stop taking HTTP a lows and throw it to Jason C serializer using the extension methods. Oh, that.

A

F

D

Content with a custom.

F

Encoding, yes, actually.

D

C

So your your options right now in that library would be either you load the whole thing into memory and then do a conversion all at once or do you fail or you did us.

F

Is available to do it in chunks right now, right you can new up and encoder.

D

Yes, but you go serve that at the Jason serializer, but it will take a string yeah.

C

So you need basically you need to do this anywhere, so somebody would have to do. We believe that work, yeah.

G

C

What I'm suggesting is, instead of making this a helper class in haste, you don't know, and instead of making us a helper class in system that HTTP just make it a helper class in system text or system I/o. They make it well. Inconsistent text actually makes sense, because that's very including this right.

D

Because transcoding is anything that's from one form to another, like yeah in peg to something else.

E

D

We that performs.

E

Characters so this but I, think on the scenarios I mean its variant dimension. If he wanted to be asked in a performant way, it would be of one over the data.

C

What do you mean by performance pair? It would be l1, it would be or anything fun, Iago, ven, sorry, yeah, a single pass over the data yeah.

E

Just I'm just reading what I would like they need to support fine embassy anyhow yeah.

C

Yeah what you could do, then the thing is this screen could also special taste UTF a for instance, because we have more optimized methods without but aside from special casing those who are just calling the abstraction.

F

Do we know that the asp team will use this because they use pipelines in a lot of places, though already have something like this internally? So.

H

Guess we know who use it in terms of special casing, I'm wondering if there are hey.

G

H

G

Are overheads we could.

H

Avoid by having this be a factory where we might recur in return like a derived, utf-8, transcoding stream, or something.

C

Instead of having the constructor special case well,.

H

The constructor, if it's special case that would create some internal additional type, is that what you're thinking oh.

C

It would I would assume that the special case would just be on whenever you call read or write. It would say if I can go down a fast path, nothing than do that instead, I I'm, not quite sure what you mean by having a factory that which runs a different right.

H

If every, rather than having every check every method on this half the check is my encoding utf-8 and then do X otherwise do y right if I detect in the constructor, if I detected in the factory that the encoding is utf-8, I can return a utf-8, transcoding stream and I don't have to do those checks, so leopard will dispatch.

C

Handler for you done at that point, that's.

H

That's what I'm asking sure.

C

We could do that. Would we even have this with the transcoding tree go away entirely and we just have a static API own system text, encoding yeah, so that.

A

I'm thinking about this, so one thing we need to keep in mind and maybe that we can hide this away. But if we do that, that means it will be very hard for use for any work. That is all event today.

A

Yes, I mean you because could copy the source effectively and if they have to on it, but I think it's if it's a separate type that needs to have a chance, but this one would make it very difficult.

C

What, if the other things you'll notice, is this type of shield? The reason for that is sub classing screams as a pain in the ass, because you have virtual methods being added all the time and.

G

C

Was trying to avoid that as much as possible, because I haven't thought through what an extensive W model might look like for this, and my default stance on those two API isn't seal them until they actually have a donkey ass model I mean.

A

That I, don't think like. Quite frankly, the problem with the factory method is effectively that nobody else can extend this right. The only people, people can only wrap and wrapping a stream is extremely difficult. So if wrapping is the scenario that we think is important, then having at I became the rifle would be easier. Well, this is a rabbit, but if I'm.

C

Saying like, if you expect somebody else so you want, then one downside is if we unseal this type and then people start overriding the virtual. All of these special casing logic. We have for years, I think.

A

C

Has to get extremely complex.

A

Yeah yeah I'm not saying they'd, be shooting what I'm saying. That's the trade-off right. So if we foresee somebody else having to do the wrapping because they have to do something in the middle, then then we have to decide what's more important to us, but but I think probably for us performance will be more important than some corner case in ours, so I'm inclined to say so. So what if we made it? A factory done.

C

A

Mean we could do that I mean I'm, basically, API would be. We would go to what did we say encoding, probably well,.

C

We could put it on it's just an attachment. I don't know if it would be a bit strange for system text encoding to have on it an API that talks about system dot IO. Maybe that's not. Maybe it's not about you, never know. I.

A

Don't think that's not I do mean it's not that strange I mean basically, if an API that talks about data right yeah, so we take spans we've taken charas, this or arrays. It seems to me logic if we.

H

Wanted it if we wanted, it could still be a sealed class that derives from stream. It would just expose a static method and you know, have a private constructor. Instead, that would also address the audit and concerns yeah.

A

But the problem then, is like you did also means we can't do live from it either. A writer yeah.

D

We go, we can derive from the thing that I guess it can't we we wouldn't we wouldn't seal.

C

It, but we would just give it a private or Angelica yeah.

A

C

A

At that point, I mean honestly I'm gonna be naked. It's that a copper method, or it seems largely irrelevant I, mean if.

D

We have a sealed class encoding string, transcoding stream, and we put a static stream returning not transferred a tree of eternity yeah create method on it. Then it can sometimes return if it's. If the arguments aren't exactly utf-16 and.

D

Utf-32 right out are the same I'm just gonna return it in a strange yeah I could.

H

Also be making a mountain out of a molehill, I mean it's possible. The checks that Levi's talking about aren't gonna matter at all. So maybe it's worth measuring and seeing if there's actually a benefit to be had yeah.

A

Does anybody have a preference for whether we create a static method on encoding, cuz I'm, just thinking about it like I, think for us, the public doesn't matter like taking source is not that Hardy. There.

D

Madhavi coating or an instance method up right.

C

Now great, it's.

D

Dead end right.

C

Now, there's a static, nothing already whats converts by the way to by the way, that's what nice and cooperative that I think.

F

I'd prefer a factory unless we can think of how someone might extend this. If we have a factory well.

C

I wouldn't want the factory to be on coming and not introduce of transcoding screen at all. Yeah I wouldn't do that. I'd rather have fewer times yeah.

F

A

Then the question becomes: what do we call the method right.

C

Let's see here, I was.

A

Singing create transcoding, scream yeah.

I

It's like they're, both straightforward.

C

Way but like yep and then Jeremy you had suggested those two encoding parameters need to be outer stream, encoding and inner stream encoded yeah.

D

Outer and inner even I, already didn't you didn't make a storms destination or the problem is I mean appends on if you're calling reader right yeah, which one's the source of what's one for this yeah.

E

J

Was actually looking.

E

At a spin any permutation, they have a read.

C

Stream and writes true yeah, which we don't tend to have read-only streams and write on those frames and.

G

Urban do almost all.

C

Of our streams only work in one mode, if.

D

You call file that create read. You can't write to it. If you.

C

Know but I mean they, they have the ability to work in one mode, but we don't necessarily have time. So no, my support one over the other Julie.

A

No be easily we could do is it could have just two different methods right? Yes,.

C

Create eating's to transcoding.

A

C

Create writing frames. Yes, you could do that, but if, in the common case, I have a pipe on a single network pipe that I want to both read from and write to. Do. I now need to create two screens for that.

A

That's their yeah. That will be hard like.

D

Right so we can do it, but, like you know, crypto stream, which you made the analogy to tell it. Are we doing reading things or writing things and then it it changes its plumbing and it won't let the other one I.

A

Mean to be honest, like I, don't mind in order because I mean that is the nomenclature we use when streams Reb.

K

Screens- which is not that uncommon.

J

There's not much like what's in and what's out there in areas, inner stream outer is the stream we built yeah.

C

The our is the rapper in there is the rap yeah.

C

A

If you go for a football with, the thing is: is that.

D

There's definitely streams and expose properties called intersects further yeah I, don't know that we ever talk about the opposite of the inner stream right.

E

I was thinking like if I were to level this pipe I'll have to do this mapping every time, because, apart from the GUI okay. So if okay so.

C

Maybe we do just create, uh we have two methods: uncommon,.

A

Graham right so we have authenticated stream and the property called inner stream right or we.

B

Have SSL stream connection when there's an inner stream where.

E

I can back and by having this industry yeah right as the thing that it took as a rap sheet.

C

Rapping, so even if we have create, read, screen and create byte stream, the parameters would be the same across both methods, yeah. Well, those port parameters would have to be the same for both create reader and curry. Later.

D

Well, because then we could call them source encoding and destination encoding. That's why yeah yeah yeah! We could do that yeah and then their meaning just flips in sorry,.

H

Was the decision Deb? It seems like an issue for something like if you were talking about HP client using this, because there is only one stream.

C

You would have to create two wrappers around oh yeah,.

D

Which is weird.

C

D

Then you'd have to make a wrapper a third stream that wraps the two streams. If you were trying to get back in, to have one multiplex screen mode yeah so.

E

Yeah for this, this is fine, Sony Vaio sources packet. Even if you have one our source of nation, you would feel their money.

C

Well, the source and destination have different meanings based on the reading or writing yeah. That's why I used in other ideas.

D

I think I think it's it'll take somebody a few minutes to figure out what the thing is, but even if we split the methods and we get source and destination I think it still has you.

H

Can also be something like you know, this encoding and inner stream encoding, or something like that.

C

Something we could also do to make this easier is right now, there's a stream in our stream parameter and an encoding inner stream encoding parameter if those two parameters were adjacent, that might also make it more understandable.

D

Because in this API proposal, thermometer.

C

D

Transcoding stream encoding outer stream encoding stream, inner stream encoding interfering, encoding, yeah.

C

So you can swap the first year parameter. Select your dress-up, maybe.

D

C

Don't know if it would.

I

Help all that much I really could.

C

D

Can swap the other two yeah destination, righty thing actual source? Yes, the problem is source comes before destination, but what's the source we don't know I've, given you yeah I'll.

E

Be more in favor of swapping second third I.

C

Think it would agree they're, so small sock, never yeah.

A

So basically, it will be inner stream, inner stream encoding our extreme encoding, and then it is open.

C

And leave open just effects dispose behavior. That's all right.

E

C

That Rambler leave open most other rattling screams. Have that concept, and every time we don't have one somebody complains and then a second. They.

B

E

Okay, so is it better? Is it worth it to have? You know like we have encoding or you debate instances and you think, oh dear Anita, 32 have math methods like these on those specific encodings streams have state.

C

The the in code, there is a concept of a stateful encoding, you call it Cody, don't get into it or anybody know doc, dip, decoder, private and that's.

K

What this would do.

C

Under the covers it has to play, because if it's given an arbitrary encoding like a thing, I, don't know what to do other than go for the public advancement. But it would special case and.

E

This again amended to you especially good today, your certain include yeah, okay, well,.

C

Yeah then, and the factory method also allows us to return a dummy pass-through stream. If you passed the same thing for before and after we have, we have options together. So.

E

What does the behavior, if I make that bust in this same.

C

According publicly nine out, if you passed, leave open false than I literally just refer me to return you if you have to leave open, true I wrap it.

L

H

Benefit of being a factory.

D

Using the encoders, oh crap,.

C

I can't do that nevermind be better or worse than just having a small.

D

They take that back. I can't I.

C

Can't return the interest rate, because the encoding will also fix up data. Yes, if you pass the same encoding, both inner and outer, the actual scenario for doing that is you want to take something that might contain invalid UTF, a for instance, and what you get on. The other side is always going to develop everything.

A

M

It with fish marks, it would have been a simply up because.

C

That's behave: the encoder, the encoding don't round trip all possible data, so.

G

C

So we can't, if.

H

We believe that to be a common scenario, though, you might be able to do a special path for it.

C

Yeah yeah we could we could we get special cases, but we can't just return the infantry employee I'm, not cursing sure they could return a special encoding.

J

Fix entry, mm-hmm.

E

Somebody hasn't only been in data and they want to pass him the same team, but do validation, I can't imagine. People would use this API.

C

For that, but you could in theory because that's behavior would have even had we not specification, hits the UA that the default is it.

M

C

And stick frog if they don't think.

E

C

No reason to disallow him.

D

Right for our built-in ones, there are questions we can ask, but you.

C

D

Non built in ways you don't know, yeah.

C

Like it's in general, even if we believe that someone has passed silly parameters to a call site like the parameter has made sense, let's not fail.

D

C

M

C

That yep sweet.

D

Sort of like from from encoding.

N

A

All right, so this was an only blocking issue and not only can go all the students again.

B

A

Of course, this pops up in the wrong browser.

F

We have api's on safe handles today anywhere. Why.

D

Especially not things that are instance or offensive methods, I'm.

H

Not understanding what issue this is working around and so.

C

There's it's done. We have these on file.

H

Info which don't require streams so.

C

This is I already have a file open. I already have the handle to the file open. I, don't want to go back through the OS to do a full path, look-up on a file in order to get this information from them right.

D

So I get last access. Time is on file and it's static, so we can just make. We can overload that string one to take a safe file, handle yeah and not make extension methods or need a new type yeah.

A

I think extension methods on a handle, its immaterial wacky to me I would not do that. I think and I agree with you. It seems most logical to overload this print based one I'm not sure how common these are, but I can buy the argument that the files already open you don't want to have another.

O

D

If you're at the you limit analytics yeah how.

A

Does it work for non-windows? Do we have think this is a five seven? Is this a file in the meaningful minutes? It's.

H

Meaningful we just wraps the file descriptor, what's less meaningful or the creation time API switch, only in rare situations are able to actually do well, but I would still do them for consistency here.

D

Sometime, if string has essentially, we would just write that too. It opens the file handle and calls the other one, but right.

H

I mean in and when we can, we return the stats birth time in the file, but otherwise we return idea. I can't remember, related I think it's like the the newest of the read in rad times.

B

H

The oldest of their beaten right times, something like that I can.

D

We've already defined what it does and then the only situation would be is if we can't get that data from the FD which I don't remember. If we can or not.

H

We should be able to it's just a question of whether we call establish the standard. Okay.

D

Yeah as long as that's that has it then I mean somebody can make a file handle that s that fails on like it's a pipe which actually might still have that data does.

H

That mean I mean you can do that we'll just have to determine like what what to do in the case where we're unable to like, if someone can create a say file handle around an arbitrary pointer right. We just have to find what the behavior is when this doesn't make sense. Yet, yes,.

D

That'll presumably fail and sit here now and we'll throw an ioexception. What.

I

About get resumed, what about getting attributes.

A

D

A

I know that didn't, but it's the only other guarantee the same. If just.

C

As a random, so I thought like. Can we drop you to the UTC suffix from these? If we return a day time walks up and just get people in the habit of using day time off seven Saturday time and only able to be live there? But it's.

D

C

A

In an overload.

D

Like having the file handle, one returned a date time offset and then string. One return a date time feels like consistency in the in the signature seems better than just eight.

C

Yeah yeah, it's just even with that consistency. It still pains me to see day time being added to new api's yeah.

F

We have to any safe file handles that are not like file system files.

C

Presumably a mem mapped file with the si file handle it's.

H

Actually got its own safe memory mapped handle, but you can create a safe pilot pedal around an arbitrary pointer, so you can create one for whatever you want in.

G

H

Logic in file stream to deal with that, okay.

D

Like the answer is, all of these things will have a behavior and it's whatever, whatever that behavior currently is like you, can pass the path to the map. Representation in the in the dev file system and it'll do something, presumably that's what wrapping it is. It's a file handle to do because it should be the same place. Great, alright,.

B

So think we just the end so I don't know what.

C

A file attribute says so system, I/o final them static methods, don't just be a boards.

M

D

Right so doing the attribute ones. The only other interesting thing that I'm seeing is do we.

D

Do we want that? Does it make sense to do like read all text from an open, FD.

A

I mean it might, but that seems like a really defense in our at that point. Yeah.

L

A

Yeah, apparently we name them all differently, so I don't have to last access time lost access to Miami, TC.

E

A

Do we want put.

E

These on file as an export them that publicly, why.

B

Would you really put them.

L

C

Isn't, on foil strain, the instance? This is on file the.

J

C

J

D

Yeah well, but we like it's already filed that get last right time of panel and now we're adding file that get left right. Oh.

C

These are, these are over loads of existing.

D

D

Yep get access control, we don't have in core and then get extra news. I.

A

Think the only other one I would consider he is literally attributes one because anything would seem pretty core ish and and.

D

We do have to get attributes methods, we do have a core.

D

L

A bunch of things that don't make sense of it: I'm, okay,.

D

But you know what we do for good attributes on the next.

C

Steve, if you're talking, we can't hear you.

H

I'm sorry: what was the question? Do.

D

You know what plow that get attributes does on Linux.

H

Yeah, it consults things like stat to fill in what it can.

H

It also makes up some stuff.

H

Advocates because, like hidden from the name, if there's the oath, its prefix with a dot, it knows whether it's a directory not stuff like that. Okay,.

D

H

Has a behavior that is not it's, yeah does baiter.

H

Okay, that said, may not be. I was just thinking it through things like hidden may not actually be the same. Like I, don't know if we can book up a file path from like filename from file handle, especially with things like links, and we use that to determine things like hidden cuz. You know whether it be ins with the dot or not.

H

I would say it's just someone tries in blunts and see how far we get and if we're comfortable with where it lands, become with it. If not, we remove it.

A

So you're saying we should do a tribute, sir well.

D

Cuz, apparently we can get things like the name by you if you call Reid link on proc self FD and then the file descriptor number that will give you the that's a sim linked to the path the file had when the FD was opened, so you can get the name at had when it was opened.

D

Apparently, according does that go.

D

P

Of these things may.

D

Be possible just with a little more work.

B

Okay, let me just add this that actually it's right, this way.

D

If we, if we find that, we can't make it work, playing I'd rather not have the overload, but have a pianist.

D

And then wait for people.

M

ah All right there, let me go back and edit this.

K

Alright seems you're happy right.

B

That's funny email you're up again: I am.

A

They're, only a few years ago, a fun little API, viewed with yes.

C

Oh yeah, this was on so I actually have one that's gonna. That would make sense to do at the same time as us. There are api's right now, interlocked on add interlock, dot, subtract blah blah blah. Those are great for doing integer arithmetic. Sometimes you need to use bitwise manipulation as well to say: I want to atomically set or unset a flag from a shared field. This is done. Asp.Net uses in a few places. I pointed out, like hey Tass. Does this as well yeah? That's really all this! Those advocate.

C

Why is it you guys should.

F

We also have been a bit test and said they don't know if that's portable I.

C

Don't know if it is either on LuAnn or you might be the best person to speak to that, would bit test and set or bit test and reset and make sense here to.

G

Check I believe that they are lockable times.

C

Up so one of the other things that that is.

B

Nice about this is.

C

The implementation of this could actually be smart, depending on the call site, for example, on x86 processors right now. If you wanted to call interlock dot and, for instance, and get the result back and then do something with the result, we would have to generate the loop for you, which is fine. We can at least do that and save you having to write that logic yourself. If, like system threading tasks, you just want to add something that you don't care about the result, then the jet can emit a simple block and operation.

C

That's it there's no loops! You.

N

You're imagining these will.

C

Be intrinsics, yes, they would be, they would be implemented based on whether the caller cares about the result as a loop or as a straight up and turns like that's already what they see. What every C++ compiler I looked at. Does.

F

If we're okay with implicitly generated loops, then I would definitely be for bit test and set the.

C

Yeah, so the only way to do this on at least on x86, if you care about the return value, is to generate a loop, there is no instruction that will do it on your behalf. I think it's finding that's how you do, but.

A

A lock washer works because there's obviously no way to do certain operations of odd yeah. We.

H

Wouldn't actually generate a loop, though right we would have these to be implemented as loops and then, if the JIT saw, we would also have the MANET it as intrinsic. If the JIT saw that it could replace it was something better it would, it would replace it correct leave.

C

The default implementation would be a loop until unless the Jets that I can do something smarter, I.

A

Mean location once he was orbit just check. That's apparently what we already.

D

C

D

C

Is another API review that I want to do right after this, which is, let's have the unsigned over there.

A

So you want them for and decrement yes,.

C

Because otherwise, you'd have to do unsafe else. Yeah.

G

Advocare e and bit test clear but test reset, but test set, compare exchange, compare exchange, 8-byte, 16-byte, decrement, incremental gate, not or subtractive, borrow subtract, X or and X add in exchange or all things that x86 and x64 support a.

A

Thing we have like 80% of them before mine, yeah.

D

G

A

You I wasn't asking.

G

About bit test clear bit test or.

B

He was asking that a.

F

New x86 supported it. That was more curious if we'd have to do something really inefficient on armor. Something like that. If.

G

We would we could check, but if we would have to, then it wouldn't be appropriate to expose here I think so.

C

Maybe what we can do that is open a separate, a separate issue for the test, clear the test for ISA the test and then just spend a little bit of time going over that separately and we're.

F

Okay, with some of these creating loops of compare exchange behind the scenes right and.

F

H

What I'm saying there's there's nothing being created behind the scene? These are fully implemented, methods that are based on loops. If the JIT can do something better, it would. But if you're calling us you're calling a method, does it as a loop, yeah.

C

Like and by the way, every everybody who wants to do bitwise manipulation now already has to have that loop in their phone. So we're not changing the code done we're not changing the actual x86 that would have been generated.

C

You know for the particular scenario we're just saying: hey we're not making you write that loop anymore, we'll do it ourselves that way, you can just call this API and it'll do the right thing, oh, and by the way, if we have a chance to optimize it even further and remove the loop, we could try doing that within the job. Yeah.

G

It's like today for, if you're on a 32-bit jet and you do interlocked compare exchange with a long, that's implemented in the jet as a loop yeah. But.

C

The nice thing is what I'm writing my application. I. Don't need to worry about that implementation, detail I, just call the interlocked API and it doesn't right thing and that's the spirit that these are done in as well.

F

That isn't funny.

H

What courage gene my situation.

F

Sorry getting off-track.

C

Stevie, whereas me.

H

I've never bought an answer bound question. Okay, glad.

D

To be a rubber duck,.

A

Who's fighting the test, reset buzzer exact, DUI, yeah I'll. Do it yeah? Oh just thank you on it. Okay,.

D

So so the other proposal that somewhere is for these, as well as the existing and decrements increments, and compare exchange that you went to MoveOn. Yes little forest adventure. What about I, don't know what interlock that read is we only have that one I.

G

Think the counselor I think interlock dot read internally is interlocked compare exchange with the existing value in one of the spots. That's.

H

Exactly what this yeah.

G

Is that when you want to read barrier when you won an actual memory barrier around your read, but you don't want to mutate the value.

G

Which? Honestly in some weird scenarios, could have undesired side effects? Because it's not purely a real.

D

But inside I don't know if that one needs a like. You won't very intern on earth that was 32 bit left over.

C

The the reason this got held up for a few years is because there was another proposal for an actual atomic of T class, similar to what C++ house, but that hasn't gotten much traction. So I wanted to at least get this through, because it does have a media value. Yeah.

B

C

If he editor yeah and then the other one which you found in link to is okay, all of us, but for unsung as well. Yeah.

A

Let's review this one immediately afterwards, so this is.

C

A

With this one, as it is, I said test and clearly Sega's F, you I wrote these terms to only one but I, don't know woman will figure it out. So.

G

My only I I think I missed if it was asked earlier, but we have in Timon because that's the ones we currently exposed many platforms, support, fight and short as well.

A

What we but there's.

G

I've seen lots of people complain that, like I, keep like, for example, if you want to do something over a pool, even though it is a bite under the covers in the CPU support that you have to instead store it as an interview wanna do atomic operations, then.

C

What we should do is if we want to support other with center.

G

C

Maybe not a separate proposal, maybe with the one that's coming up, because the one that's coming up is adding unsigned variants of all of these yeah. Should we also add one and two with variants of them, assuming we, the.

H

Pile of them the problem I have with that is I, don't know what you do on platforms that don't support it.

G

The same thing you do with with long you implement it differently with the loop.

N

G

We already guarantee in the runtime that updating anything that is naturally aligned and smaller than the pointer sizes of atomic operations, so updating a byte is an atomic operation guaranteed by the runtime spec already yep.

H

But we don't have an interlock to write for long. That's the concerning case. What.

C

Platforms would not support byte and short atomic operations because it looks like x86 supports it. I see the instructions.

G

Yeah and arm supports I, don't think, there's any platform that we would support with the JIT that wouldn't it would be too many potential breaking changes with that.

H

As long as there's no platform as long as there's no platform where we might find ourselves needing to write a full say, you know word in order to write the byte I have no problems with it.

C

Is there a compelling need to support things like bite before right? Well, like I I get it, we can do it because we can I. Just don't remember anyone asking for right now, because these were based on actual, like going through the code and see know the code can benefit from this. It's.

G

I think it's a case of like there's likely use cases, but everyone who's encountered. It has had to use in today, like.

L

I know, there's been places.

G

Where I've had a fool and I've wanted to do an atomic off date on it and hey I, can't because it's a bool, although I think for bool in particular, there's reasons because it's not just your own one, it's zero and not one. But you can't do it on yeah when.

A

It's use of anyone who has them as Steel's, and you don't want to use the wide important area, spectrum or contact right. That's the hardware itself, yeah.

C

I'm I'm, just at the moment, having trouble thinking of a scenario I'm sure they exist. It's just a failure of my imagination can.

H

We keep it separate.

K

A

Of addition to that, I think the one that is linked. He also talks about a generic one for structs that I believe I, don't think at least not so much else.

B

A

Yeah, that's what it sorry yeah. That is never.

C

B

C

Yeah the I ignore the generic struct aspect of it, yeah, which is fine.

K

B

Gonna build their.

C

Own just scroll all the way down, yeah, so the stuff at the tops. What's already there, the stuff at the bottom is what's being added, it's literally a carbon copy with consigned everywhere and CLS combined falls.

C

Presumably, since we just approved at or EXOR, we would do a door x over here as well. Yeah.

B

With the books in and.

D

If you had, if I taught you before, you'd hit be approved on the otherwise, if they would actually table that one do this, women come back and yeah.

A

Well, the nice thing is I. Have it's still here? What so it's.

B

C

And there's like there's discussion earlier about how it saves people from having to use temporaries or : save api's. Or what have you, especially since these are ostensibly safe.

G

Right and since it's just updating memory from the native side, we can just reinterpret cast it down same size. Besides.

L

H

G

C

H

Is the workaround for anyone who doesn't have these today? Did you just use unsafe as right.

C

Yeah I'm, not a the thing, is I'm not smart enough to implement out over X or presumably you 10 or someone else can do it. Yeah he'll do.

C

These I'm, these I'm confident I, could actually have limit myself if I needed to.

A

You slashed off a single night, Commons Levi. What do you slash star for single line comments? Not.

C

Always thank you, so I use slash star instead of reading, ah because you can't collapse them. He said their evil word had I, not have multi-line comments or would have been a a region around the before in a region around the after.

C

You're welcome.

E

So we had to do I gotta defeat, you guys I I,.

C

Mean the thing about atomic of T is in C++ in particular, like C++ uses, templates and specialization, and we have generics in c-sharp, which means that the implementation of atomic of T would be really mind-bending.

C

Which we could still do it's just the.

F

C++ atomic is super super complicated as well.

D

Assume that for the part of us that we're ignoring of the other generic drug, that would have to be.

C

Little oh yeah, I, don't know what I means to atomically update.

D

It an AirCam that we would do the same thing that compare exchange. Lung does on a 32-bit system of do multiple, multiple reads and multiple, like I'm gonna gather, atomic.

G

So how do I know they need yeah.

D

Because I guess I don't know how we did compare if.

G

I, remember correctly, it basically does a compare and if it's true it does the exchange and it continues doing the exchange until the value it reads is the value it expects, but.

C

Now you could have another threat see at or instruct yeah yeah. That's somewhat solve. Atomic.

D

So I want a 32-bit atomic interlock. Compare exchange is not actually gonna octave unless everybody like, as soon as one person does a 30 read they. They can witness that here at state.

D

Compare exchange.

N

Long should be implemented in a single instruction on x86, not all 32-bit systems, especially when.

G

The JIT was first written, had compare, exchange, eight fight and I, don't yeah.

F

I think everything we saw the operating systems.

N

We support with higher.

F

Processors that have exchange papers- yes,.

K

But I don't think that it's been updated to use it and had.

G

K

Comment on this or no I have no idea. Okay, I mean I, can't both what I have to learn. I.

C

Just I heard you typed I thought you were typing into both. So sorry, yeah I know I'm typing in my text, editor yeah um seems.

D

O

D

The generic drug.

B

Let me add a comment on that: one- actually, maybe not this year, because in my life is more visible than it needs to be so.

E

The konbu generation it.

D

Seems like a very it's a different proposal than the one that we were talking about right now, which is you'd.

G

Have to do like an atomic rep update which isn't really exchanging the struct you're exchanging the pointer, and at that point we should just have a compare exchange, pointer, overload, yeah or maybe an unsafe API that does it with with with rats. We.

C

Have we already have, by the way, a comparison to overload the takes, because.

F

You can turn a pointer.

C

Into a rough I,.

F

Would be interested in this separate proposal of how to compare exchange to pointers at a time I.

C

Know I know there's at least a Windows API for that, but I, don't know how its implemented or the hours.

F

The CPUs, supported I think the the first AMD CPUs did not support 128 bit exchanges, but everything after that did yeah.

H

But a copy I'd be very interested in that as well. If we can implement it everywhere there we have data structures that could really benefit from it.

G

You can't implement it on a 32-bit machine. It's not available.

C

Yeah yeah thanks.

F

To pointers compared on 32 bits, as you know,.

G

It's there what compare exchange 16 byte for 128 bits? Oh yeah,.

F

Yeah, you couldn't have a 16 byte, but you could have a 2 in pointer destruct somehow something like that. Two pointers.

F

Correct, oh yeah,.

C

N

Like I hijacked.

G

C

Api review today, it's great yeah I'm, getting so much special attention here, notably.

G

A thing that's missing here that might be worth adding is in winter and you in pointer, although we might want to say, wait until in inches out and then expose it on that. That.

C

Is one of the things that I was hesitant about doing for exchange there, because I added compare exchange, an exchange of un pointer because we already had a breath in pointer but yeah so which ones are you the exchange one so and or an XOR of Tennant and knew it? Because.

G

So realistically, every single one of these, if you had, if you had in end in youant, is just if 32-bit use the into overload if 64-bit use the long over life, our new.

C

Int and UN pointer, like equivalent, they.

G

Are unhappy at the jet level they are equivalent. The compiler is going to add an attribute to say that when you look at me from the compilers perspective, view me as an in int with and expose the operators, but they are their identity. Conversions, so you can do like in pointer x, equals in end value, have.

A

We made a decision what we do in the VCL, because we can't overload right yeah.

G

A

Be no overloading will we will we change.

G

Some of our in PDRs of you and PDRs to be in is I don't know what we've said about that as a breaking change. I think we said for certain return types. It may cause confusion and yeah we're.

A

Neck for these, the question is: what what's and do we one right, yeah.

G

A

It seems also like may not matter first case, that person has to do a cost right. Yeah a cast here is not the worst thing: yeah I.

G

Think I think, given the fact that we say that they should be treated as that, that in pointer should be treated as a pointer and in it should be treated as an integer, then for compare exchange where we already have in pointer it's fine but but yeah, there's like add and decrement. We probably want to make those in int explicitly sure yeah, okay, so.

C

We can bring that proposal up, win it into new interests or together they meet, let me add another one and that we could also handle. Actually, that would be a really good thing to bring up at the same time as the other wits of decrement and so on. Yeah.

G

Okay yeah because I'm looking at the our manual here and at least unarmed 64, they support them for everything that we've talked about here. Just think of the FTA to be have and in.

E

Flavor then we go to add I, don't think so. How.

D

Many definitely the image teller.

M

Was like it'll go through.

E

D

Not via the size, 1 yeah,.

G

I imagine we should have talked to people like you on to see what they say about the other types as well. They may know about some platform that mono supports, for example, that doesn't support that, for whatever reason sure, okay.

G

And if that's the case, then we could look at exposing some in some intrinsics that do it. His.

L

G

Example, arm 64 our support for atomic min max okay.

O

Got to wrap my mind around that one sure yeah, but x86 has no concept for that. So.

D

Alright say that there are two different proposals with different expected yeah success.

D

I have a reira view if we want to get one easily or we can just get going dating. I was.

A

Just about to hit.

C

The next one, easy-easy reviews make us feel warm and fuzzy inside I mean what is yours. You want the number yeah.

D

Two: nine five, eight eight.

B

To nine five, eight eight.

A

This thing, I, don't see, is the dress. Is it mark, lady, for you.

D

It wasn't mark ready for review when the meeting started. It is now I had.

P

To go back and apply.

D

A

I do not see it. Why is that.

B

295 a date night so that I don't know.

D

So we talked about this while you were off gallivanting in the ocean, email.

I

1901 the ocean.

B

No I feel so much more productive.

A

So I have the there's a wall of textiles that.

D

C

Something for you, yeah.

D

This is updated based on the feedback from last time, so everything's based on ranges instead of spans, so we no longer needed as a ref struct and everything that said size now says lengths. So it's always span that length is what they passed into it and in the ten fields.

D

What used to be like decoded size is now decoded data linked to to show that it's mapping to the basics before data range instead of location early, so.

C

For context around.

D

Some eyes injected.

C

There so yeah so for context. uh The idea is that you're, given a buffer of text and you're, basically running a glorified parser over it, and the parser is telling you here's a snippet where some interesting data was found inside of this text or inside of this data. The original proposal was returning a ref struct that contained read-only span of byte that, where that read-only span of bite was a reference back into the buffer that you'd originally given them.

C

One of the changes that was made after review was instead of returning a ref struct, like Jeremy, said, return ranges now that way, we just tell you here's where the interesting chunk of data began and here's where it ends that way. If you need to do something like go from a memory and then slice in memory of T as opposed to a span of T well, you can now apply the range to that or if you have an array, you can apply the range to that, and so it's a more versatile UI.

C

Now what is it? Constructor, internal?

C

D

That only the find API returns, one yeah, but.

A

It's correct right: I! Guess you cannot see it.

E

Maybe we could make it public. Is there a scenario where find I find only look for specific labor or a base technical data only and not the rest and therefore calling find I find and Queenie instruct me do a lot of work. The best I am only looking for location. Did they say for that way, I don't give only visible data or no.

D

Look at them, you're, looking for them, I don't want to know, because, if you're reading PIM, which is a that's the file that starts with five hyphens, the word begin a kind of thing and then five hyphens, then a new line, then a bunch of like it's the.

D

If you have the file that has a bunch of things concatenated together, either you're only supporting the first one, in which case yeah you don't care about the label, but you can you may care about the other things or you want to make sure that the label is the one you are looking for, and so then it's just like yeah. That's why it takes read only span as the input of like. If you didn't like this one slice past it and pass in the next one and it'll find the next. It started, and.

C

Just to clarify decode the data length is the number of bytes. You would get back if you have our color.

D

Convert off dot base64 on basics, before they're, on the slice that is based, sixty-four data, that is the number of bytes it would produce, got it so it subtracted all the new lines, the non-standard new lines, the spaces and the EPL's one.

C

Of the other nice things about having the constructor internal is, if we wanted to add fields in the future, we could without really break in the API yeah.

E

Do we expect to have fields in future, because let's say we have 10 more to go.

E

D

At that point, yeah I mean like we can make it I. Don't remember why I mean.

A

Usually, what you want to make struck constructive public is reconstructs are usually pure data holders, and it's just there's no reason like you need it for testing. It's just an idea to make it public, yeah I, think maybe.

D

We were looking at it as like. If it has the internal constructor, then it's never wrong, like no one could have built the wrong one. Only the API that can produce this produced it, though yeah.

E

I guess, if there's no clutter, why we make the public because.

A

A few data holders user to make public because then you can construct them and compare them like it's. A coup d'etat whole to make you not and I am viewing any sort of for that.

D

I guess the real problem is right. It's a proxy.

G

D

You can easily like what does it? What should anything do if you've created one and the length actually doesn't match the base64 data I mean if you mutate the data underlying data after calling parse, it will be wrong, but otherwise, if you're building one by hand like we then need to have a semantics. This is like Oh negative. One means no one like this wasn't pre calculated. You have to just figure it out.

D

You're like it has two things that are interrelated and and exposed making it public means that it's just more prone to the infinite erroneous state.

D

B

The constructor.

C

We always make it public in the future if we have to presumably.

E

Getting coded size takes Neverland and adds it to whatever the DLN times, basically encoding it. It does the correct amount of math.

P

There's the motivation.

L

That's why it's like, but.

C

It's it's a little more complicated than just different eyes, so.

A

Presumably, because we don't make the constructor public, we don't care about it. Implementing I create a rule.

A

C

Like I, don't know why you'd ever compare these things, but.

A

If you can't construct me, if you can't construct one make sense for testing right but like if you don't construct one, he will never find two that I'd, probably a tactical. So what's the one.

I

D

Yeah I, don't think we thought it all about I equatable and you weren't here last time. So don't ask the question, but.

A

I mean virtually all structs that we didn't implement eventually ended up in Lumineers, but yeah.

D

We can at it.

A

If you, if you, if we never.

B

Yeah I just editor the question.

A

And then there's only ever works in utf-16.

C

Currently, yeah the the decoding is from utf-16, so.

A

What happens if the add support for utf-8 does the structure of the ten fields have to change, or is that already taken care.

D

Still responsible for understanding what the original data is that you're slicing yeah.

A

One location label in base64 day there are ranges from the span so.

C

They are byte offset they're, not they're. Just you're just ranges their ranges. The usual.

A

With the expectations that can take that and slice and then get the illegal data.

D

Or infamous chars, so no char upset isn't if you give read-only span of char each and there are eight offsets so.

A

D

C

A

C

They're vital cells, but they also there's elements. It's usually a third string type has has an indexer which of such a range, and it will do the right thing.

A

Let me just do.

C

Yes, it's I in the proposal as it currently exists. The particular values first started and on range are opaque.

E

So API try right and right is the data, so you'd be called BCD for data.

E

P

Binary data it creates.

E

So what is the basic.

D

For data range, if so, okay in a pin field and pin him have a header yeah, then you have basic support. Then you have a clerk. It is. This is the range that represents the data segment. It is base64 encoded. We haven't decoded it for you. You need to go deal with that. The.

C

The point the point of PEM encoding is to take binary data and put what's called ASCII armory around it, and the idea is, you can now take that and shove it into an email message or something like that, and that means that the output of PEM is text like it's actually something that is human readable. That.

D

C

Privacy, privacy, enhanced manual- yes, this.

J

Was the defendant yeah.

A

So and so the outputs going to be okay.

J

A

So but basic support data is basically arranged over the text. Representation of the base64 correct. Yes,.

D

E

If you have one word that has a 64.

D

Text in it- and we've said here from here to here- is where the base64 stuff was. This is what you pass to convert that tri from 164. If.

A

We were to get the excavator, you slice it to the basic support in arrange your pass it into our basics, to 4 decoder and you get the actual buddy yep.

C

And the number of vitals.

E

C

E

C

E

Clever, do we need jargon soon or data consume on Friday, you have charged it in to the destination. It doesn't.

Q

E

Q

It doesn't do all.

E

The data and all the neighborhood network well.

D

C

No, the only way I would do.

D

That is if it ran out of memory yeah, in which case it's like you said you want to write something down. It's going to write it down. Yes, it can't make an array big enough to think.

C

Of it might convert to base64 string like it will, it will consume the entirety of the input data and, if you're calling the spam based over load, it will return false saying the destination was too small or if you're calling the string base overload, it will just run out of memory. So it's not like partial consume dates and the data you want to behave. It formatted, Mable's.

E

C

That way, things through.

E

Is that gamesman and they would've been better or in completely empty space? Okay and.

L

What do you do for that? I.

E

L

If it starts her into the white space through.

L

D

Let me kind of tighter turns faucet the turns to smoke. All all things that are called that look like try right are only allowed to return false if the destinations still every other thing must.

C

Sleep yeah all right. It fills this limit, so we can know we have now approved in the API that returns ranges. I am going to have a field day with us. Why would we know it? I mean you you're, going to regret.

D

Giving me funny when he got for that section he's like. Have we ever done this anywhere like this seems? Why are we adding this rule and then he got to the conclusion at the end, he's like this is a good rule. Look, let me read this. These few.

C

Hair grafts, it's like what let's stop returning here, that's not making for over loads of every him. I would be interested in reading about it. Alright.

G

B

G

That we that UMO have previously said we should review as a standalone, API and we're still not schedule it, because.

G

B

G

Basically, mirroring an existing API, but with a new concept.

D

Maybe the label.

G

Of email schedule, yeah.

B

I was about to say, I, think, we've put in either label for that label.

A

Di ready for mo.

F

O

B

O

Yeah, like we probably need a label for complicated, you know maybe API ready for scheduling, API.

K

E

E but we have a hot problem.

K

But it seems a bit over the top design.

E

Is very confidential.

B

A

I want something like API needs, meeting or something yeah but like for now. I think neither sticks exactly. That's not it to myself.

C

If, actually, that would work if, if the pattern is ready for review and assign it to him, oh yeah I think that's potent under that idea. Okay, all.

A

Right I mean works great if evolution team.

C

We could just blackballed everything.

A

Like how to make progress within that show um all right so where's, my other two and.

E

Then you know how pretty fine, oh.

A

No but I leave the team. I will just make sure nothing is assigned to me because it's called the github veggie plate. So then we've.

L

Seen this in action before.

A

That I was about to say we had people on the team would be nuclear, a typical on their.

E

P

C

That's fully fun. We have the pitch fork, just click that link it's great.

C

Because it takes you directly to the comment that has the API proposal. Follow me: no, no! It's the same issue, just a comment in the issue. Well, so yeah. So there is a binary reader and binary writer. There are protected methods that allow you to read and write seven bit encoded, integers and I know I've written wrappers around these I. Imagine millions of other people around the world have to because, oh my god, I think yeah, then there's.

D

Like CLR constant structure, no I, don't know what for you I, don't know. I thought that, like literals inside, like inside, if you're using the metadata reader to read back there, something else.

C

D

M

Byte yeah: that's exactly what the slizz go.

I

C

Order to do that, like everyone has had to write that logic themselves. Oryx had to write a wrapper around it in this social, so you know, let's just make it public wait.

G

Why put it on binary reader and not on.

G

System reflection metadata, which I think already has that support no.

A

Because the encoding is popular, it just happens to be used in there as well, and that's where most of us encountered that, because we.

C

Yeah, so, first of all, these the there is an internal method. Right now, a protected internal method reads: 7-bit encoding int, like we could literally make that public, yeah I believe taking a protected method and making it public there's a lot of breaking change is a great thing. Yes, it's not virtual. If it's not very sir, it shouldn't be because reg.

D

A

D

Protect protected virtual is because, when you said protect it override and it see it or a c-sharp says, ah but.

C

There is no particular, but because it's not virtual.

D

Making a public should not be a break in charge site near Anders, override replace the access I'm on fire.

L

Go back 20 years and fix that.

C

Yeah, so the simplest proposal is literally just to take those two protecting methods making public. This is a more advanced proposal which supports 32-bit, 64-bit and bigoted infant I.

A

Mean I can get behind the long version begin. Theater series I think that we care there's no begin to just support anyone by the reader and writer. Well, we headed for seven beds, yeah.

G

And I'd rather see it as being able to write opaquely to a span and then having us exposed the big integer array as a span in some capacity, if possible, yeah.

C

This always assumes big endian when it's written morning, but what's it like.

D

When it's returning big integer, it's kind of it's big integer happens to be.

D

And we're not just making their protective things public, because we're fixing into 1032, which.

C

We could do yeah.

D

Well, which I was gonna, say it's it's called internet violence are.

E

Well with that proposal, if that for students to create and not Fushimi, maybe I would be just take the hit on naming and just make that perfect, particularly.

C

Because it'll still be there, we have a live, look it'll still be a public API right. One of them can call the.

D

Other the jet can turn that into their the district or that to revamping the motion. David oh I mean.

C

One one would call the other recourse yeah yeah.

E

I was a bad welcome to enjoy, but just from the user seeing it the eyes I get yeah protect it.

D

Is sort of funding.

E

D

It actually protected, or is it internal protection because it's somewhere reference either internal structure.

A

No, it's, let's exit any.

E

Was interpreted kind of heart well,.

D

If it's a protected thing inside an internal class, yes, that it's not in public amenity, yeah, I, guess really the question: does it show up on API? Is that time.

D

It does, but it would be weird if we had the one for long that we have in sixty-four incredible but yeah.

G

Since the name is already.

D

E

The question of Enoch: how often do people accept us I am either that's what I would have every statement? Oh.

C

I've done it before we're really just access this anyway and I. Imagine quite a few other people have to actually.

D

That different, maybe this value just making it only I mean we see it, I mean.

J

If this were this kind of call, this meant that appears on two percent.

D

Of API for collection yeah, so we can't we wouldn't rename it and then the question is: would we rather have right, seven been encoded in quite 7-bit encoding at 32 and right? Seventy bit encoded at 64 or skip the one name 32 and just have the one with the long name. There's.

E

Your two persons that many knives.

A

Yeah, probably part of the template you're.

L

A

How do you so so I get the one that we can't fix the the 132 bit I used today. I was saying for 64-bit. We do the same thing. 64.

D

But we obviously need the suffix, because we need to disambiguate this.

A

D

Question is: do we make the protected one public which is not in essence, it's not virtual. That's not a runtime or recompile breaking chain work, or do we make a public one that is correctly named, so only people who extend the class see the one with the incorrect name and I.

D

I am so conflicted that I refuse to have an opinion.

A

Eponymous in practice, you can't hide the thing I can.

D

C

A

Dogs in other places, so I would rather just reuse the existing name rather than having.

C

All three versions: I can make a straw man argument as to how making this public would break and that's if someone used for flexure to access it, yes, cool it up. Here, it's protected. You can use public election to access protected numbers if you're in the fence.

E

That does sort of be the day, adding and no.

C

I I agree with a though I mean.

A

If you call it, the idea of reflection, I mean.

C

Come on well, because you didn't want a subclass minor, but.

D

If, if standard public reflection would find it, and that means that you would probably be calling it without specifying any flags and I continue to find, it have to be explicitly saying, I'm only looking know.

C

You would explicitly have to say: I want private them exactly what non-public numbers in there. Yeah yeah yeah.

A

Which, honestly, if the actually concern of all of these things, you should consider it fixing that in reflection, basically saying like, if you can't find anything and the visibility, basically, somebody asks for a non-public scan for public at slaughter. Return that, if you really care about like I, think to me this is like yeah I would not butcher the API stuff is just because somebody may have done something crazy. I would also maybe added.

C

A browsable number the same: the existing code won't change.

D

The only one we still have like emos pointees would still have to have it up on the dockside yeah, because it's a publicly palpable thing and we have three of them, and it says this one is protected and has an old name and there's the public one and.

A

Quite friendly I mean I, don't think the pattern is super bad, because I mean it's the same thing with it and other things like process. We can edit 64-bit versions afterwards, just to have more right, but.

D

We do have it guys like. There is an explicit guideline that says don't say the word again. Yeah.

C

D

Say again, 32 yeah, which.

C

I mean this is this is violated right and we can very much about them. Yeah yeah, so.

M

C

Seven been encoded in read: seven been encoded in 64, yeah, okay and then they.

M

C

With my light, yeah yeah and we're going to get our server though, and they all become public, yeah and.

E

Be doing big and each other no.

L

No is that ignore big in a good way. Okay,.

G

And what about that? We don't have anything else. The others, big integer, big integers, sometimes shift in a separate library from these files and many other reasons. Yeah it'd probably be better to expose a span over load and then expose some way to or get a span from, a big integer.

D

Yeah that way, it would be a yeah like that, because that one would be super weird because you would give it a thing of like and I really hope that it's you know that it fits in 64. Some semantic fits and it'd be like nope. It kept going like fine, try again with a bigger, and it seems it seems super niche, and you may want to like just.

J

D

Ahead and find where it stops and doing yourself.

J

E

Be any other types of 8-bit encodings that might be relevant.

C

This is the only one. That's that's really interesting. It's on by every other binary writer I mean this one's already here, yeah.

D

C

D

Are please stop making the extenders type just access the protected Ripper.

C

Yeah there are other more compact encodings, but like.

P

C

You look at what I think if you look at what protobuf uses, they have like a more clever encoding for being able to represent negative numbers as well within seven. That's most of the time, yeah.

F

That zigzag pattern is kind of cool yeah.

E

So Glenn from Rebecca in Turner debug deck is fine. There. Yes,.

C

Fan of this exact, having coming great quarry.

F

P

A

All right so then I consider this one done.

B

Yeah, that's this one, a big one too,.

G

It's big number: this is more of the armament things that we should have a dedicated session. Okay,.

N

B

If I can spell my own name.

A

Easy reference, equality, API, okay, that sounds easy.

C

Levi you're up again great, so the downside of this was I, went through a but like a few days ago, I went through a bunch of api's which had a proposal and just weren't marked ready for review and then marked and ready for review. So there we go reference. Equality, compare its equality, compare that just does referential equality as opposed to equality, comparative people.

F

I want the edition every.

Q

One of these myself in the past so I would have used it. We just edited for Jason as the perfect, but.

C

It's a referencing quality yeah.

E

C

In your case was an IE quality, compare of object or a quality. Compare of some other team.

A

But why is it not the same as like a bit of key.

E

But then me differently because.

A

C

Compare of object or default that will call object, docket, hash code and object are equals which invokes the virtual get hash code and virtual equals.

G

C

Like two strings, for instance, could have the same contents but be different references, whereas this would say no no they're actually different.

F

So what is get hashcode returning here? It.

C

Returns the sink walk-in ducts of the effect.

E

So I pasted the name to the default, their first quality. Compare that we use Dylan, Jason, yeah I, think it's. This will go ahead exactly that.

E

The only differences we have interface implementation, especially it's basically an imitation of God, an implicit I.

C

Guess I could have had this on fasted equality, compare of teens I.

A

C

A

To say, I would probably put in system collections generic and that, where woman live would add a if field rather than the type I will probably another field next to default called reference. So you would say quality, compare of object, dot reference and then because why would you ever need.

C

More than one of those good well so equality compare of T dot. What reference I would just add a few next to default. They just get through one. That field presumably returns the exact same equality compare for, regardless of which key you passing, because.

N

C

Compare of T dot default actually returns a unique thing per T, and if we have something, that's expected to return the exact same instance, regardless of which T that's passed in, then it doesn't necessarily belong as a field or property on a generic type. That's fair, although we can't cheat.

A

Mine, you can have an internal type that holds the instance, then they all point to that. It.

C

Does but the chip now has to work extra hard, because every single, every single, just quality, compare of T that the D that the reference compare field has access to all needs its own instantiation at jetan.

C

A

I probably explained that point like you know, I know it makes sense. It just pains me to another type. It does go and then especially when it's in the wrong.

E

A

That the reason.

E

Might be don't want to make this generic well.

C

It doesn't need to be generic yeah because it always operates on object. I mean like it's edition.

A

It's only for classes.

C

But if addition- because it's definitely quality like you, because I you quality, comparable Eve is variant. Yes, my equality compare is of NT, so you can take an I equality, compare of object and literally turn it into equality. Compare of anything as long as anything is not a delicate item, so something yeah I mean but like then you can pass this to a dictionary of string. Anything. For instance, you could pass it to a dictionary of person, anything corresponding kimmy.

A

Then just add inequality compare non-generic that sits next to equality, compare of T, okay, it really seems victory to the non-generic in space yeah. What's up differentiation, I mean that's an odd yeah, but equality compare doesn't exist in system collections either like if that that would already exist, it would make sense, but the type doesn't exist there. Oh that's.

C

The other reason I didn't subclass equality, compare of T because.

B

C

D

We frequently you'll have a log, there would say yeah as effectively a bit alike. I remain sitting there. Something Erica I mean like this, for example, to point now.

C

Then would you make it as hype.

A

C

Over loads of creepy, just don't actually instantiate and alright. What do you mean? No, there is a singleton instance on there. It's not it's tangible.

C

It's sealed and has a private constructor.

D

Private is you can't create it right.

L

Going back, Michael.

A

So then, let me propose something here: I mean: what's the nobody cares about those.

B

E

Now you want to sell out yeah for that, because.

C

I polity, comparer of T docket hashcode of T, is documented as disallows know, except for that's not always enforced idea compared he's.

J

Get a score people when I.

C

J

C

Why was trying to make a change yesterday, where I had equality, compare of string, dot default returns drinking Herod auto-enroll, because why shouldn't that? But they treat Knowles differently, and this would have made substantial improvements to dictionaries performance if I could do no say string.

D

Ones, probably because it's a ill-defined treat.

C

Melanie and distribute the same thing know so strengthen curb. Does the right thing? It just allows no equality comparative aunty phone allows know. Even though it's documented this discipline, it's fantastic, I. Guess.

P

It would have to do something because you can have no, no, you can't, but no people, no.

E

Yeah I benefited faculty consistent with and I.

C

Think the point was pick a thing you know he can be consistent with that. I'm.

D

Picking the documentation.

C

I'm picking what the doc says, as opposed to the behavior of equality, compare T, which we don't sell class. What did we put on the interface says disallows null so.

D

We're matching unity.

C

Does I quote if you compare uh pop you inherit, I quote if you compare I, do not believe so, but let me check.

P

M

That's unfortunate, it isn't because.

A

Then what does reference so? Ok, let me let me just show the API here. Only half I mean you have.

A

Actually I didn't check, I mean that might explain why doesn't it doesn't extend, but it would make sense. Yeah x2 this one yeah, it's a bit assistive collection.

M

C

Respond that doesn't find it for some reason. You.

A

All right so then, so.

E

Why not make an extra piece of invitation or ganache Korean equals it specifically.

C

Why otherwise, this type would have known meth atomic, oh.

E

C

Yes, yes, I mean it implements this one interface on this one interface, only we may as well just make it an implicit intimidation. Working that way you could do roughly reference equality, compare instanced off equals or docket hash code, and it just it flows like an L. So let me show what I have so.

C

You've introduced a new type equality. Compare yes, yes,.

A

Because I mean you talked earlier right and we said we want to just flow. The existing pattern. Maybe have a non-generic overload next to quality, compare of T.

B

Well, I'm confused: where else would you put it? What.

D

Do we need on the non-generic intercourse, like.

A

What oh yeah I would do that because, if anything takes Anaya quality compared I call it to compare. That is one genera. And what are you doing here bad like then, you have to just make sure these rooms yeah.

C

I don't know if I would introduce a non-generic equality compare of type, though they think that would be confusing, but.

A

What would you return? You need to return an instance that is both high quality compared my quality of object yeah. So what.

C

Do you do well, that's why I had proposed a reference equality compare in the name, a proposal like? Are you actually introducing a type of literally called equality? Compare yeah, it's an overload and execrated compare of t, but equality. Compare of t is an abstract class that people are expected to subclass. You know people just exited to exit numbers, usually no.

A

Is it actually is an abstract.

C

A

Mean you can I guess people just don't do that most people just say reference are equal. You compare of some type dot dot default before you yeah and that's the pattern I try to follow, but that's what I said. It's unfortunate I would rather yeah, but it's that yeah if to expose it's not married yeah yeah.

E

Having it be sitting extra quality, compare of keys in the well, but what no matter what you doing will sit next to it. No, if the name has reference about your up there, and then it's explicit that this is something different than the.

C

Fact that the name is so similar, but the behavior are so different is what grows me off well, but that.

A

Because if you stop class that you define the behavior, you can't stop us also sure, but the other one is like. If you stop, doesn't need to find you homie. If you don't stop, don't you just get the default behavior and so here's basically don't say you get the reference, because your ex.

C

Is that guy, the other, the other nice thing about having a standalone reference equality compare type is that you can literally say if incoming comparer is reference. Equality compare do something like special cases in that regard, not that you should that you could. You can equals.

D

Equals it against equality, compare that reference same functional flow just differently as.

C

Well, assuming that our behavior is for all time that reference returns a single time, what I mean I would say yes well well, because that's an implementation detail no, having.

D

Other benefits if the property returns a different value and every call it's not supposed to be a partner, so we would need to make an amended now and document that we don't vary you do we.

C

Could, for instance, have a property that returns a thread static I mean.

A

We clinical for I mean let's keep mine implemented in is trivial and it's kind of one implementation think about pretty obvious because you've compared to addresses in memory yeah. That's them two men.

C

There's no state so like yeah I mean like but I I guess what I'm saying is we would we would be telling people we're not exposing this implementation detail via the API surface, but instead you can take a dependency on it through these other mechanisms to.

M

Me that sounds the.

C

Same as that made of empty array array, not empty, isn't guaranteed Infernus with him.

M

It's not guaranteed to do it good, but this is the API from.

E

The name of the type there's an API you watch. This is not the API yeah.

C

The only changes.

E

That the name we change names of the platform.

C

And I think I. Think change in the name implies very significant difference. I mean.

K

Yeah I just see the reason I like this is because it's less concepts.

E

But it, but it doesn't reduce the fact that, like a lot of time, you have typed that Jenna was not generate and they're very similar. It's as the one is generated.

C

Normally, when we have non-generic engineer types living next to each other in the same namespace, the non-generic has factories for the generic type right. That's almost always want to use a form which.

A

D

Kinda, because.

A

It's a fixed factory for a fixed behavior right. It's not a factory.

C

For the dinero type, though yeah.

B

D

Because it's it's returning a thing that doesn't it doesn't I.

K

D

A

It seems more likely to do any reference I.

D

Mean there, certainly, if you search source, type, a comment or reference EQ, you find a lot of people who have made types reference. A quality compare or one called reference, equals a shortage America because.

A

If you have to create your own, like that's the most logical thing to do, you can sure it seems weird to call something equality compare up, and it has one specific behavior for anything right here. You instantiate it right. I mean the question is what, if you would ever have to add something that is lunge America?

A

What would we do.

E

Like well already hit or time yes, if you want to have a non-generic, the quality. Compare that semantics of the other right. So.

C

If we wanted a reference, property I would rather put it on equality. Compare up to any quality, comparable good that knowns, that they do instantiate for everything, with the downside that it gets instantiated, but we might be able to work around that at their level.

D

Changes are expensive and difficult. Yeah need to be worth it. We would never say that that was because eternal yeah.

A

Unless you can find as a significant performance you should you probably won't, do it.

E

It's also a little strange to say: call you compared or deference to mean yeah like a property called references.

J

I would say: that's going to be called quality, just I.

A

Mean that's: what is your boss? It just exists from the from the flow standpoint. It makes no sense to me your number day, though. So what do you want to call it in.

E

Vip I think, though, there's not any better anywhere's know the properties right. The.

D

Other thing too so I will say: one thing to keep in mind is given that people have a plethora of types name to reference: a quality comparing that they're trying to get this behavior. There is a possibility that we're going to put them in a this is going to introduce a lot of source breaking changes where people have put it in a utility type, and now two different using imports are importing a type of the same thing.

D

So by picking good everybody's already picked, the best name, so maybe you most think is better because no one would've named at this.

C

The logical conclusion of that, though, is that we can never introduce types with good names at any point of Iraqi joint, which I mean is what like, that's fine as far as we're all concerned, because we don't choose good names for anything. We do right so.

D

I'm, just like I am pointing up. It is the one like the one downside is people when they're building and more like, as they start to upgrade that this would be a weird. You know, type conflict.

J

D

They have generic and non-generic.

J

The like sonic in Monterey records body compare of Pete. This would be not in it link expressions.

D

Is of T and Windows base is not an example is of tea like. Why would they do a 50 yeah? It's a quality. Comparative team extends I equality, compare of teeth because they don't think about every class instantiates the same generic.

K

Actually, that's at Google or in the runtime.

D

Every if T is a reference title or is a is that yeah is a reference type. Then they all collapsed. The same implementation so.

A

I quality compare of T is variant. Yes, so you can't doubt you to I came down cause I already comparable object to high quality. Oh.

C

Yes, that catches me, though, but.

A

It also makes it no more awkward for people that, let's say instantiate a have said and want to pass in equality. Compare reference.

C

To quality comparable instance with a cost, because I wasn't I need to cast just generic.

D

A

Think that's new of because they see a new hash it of customer yeah. So the second argument is well give me the quality, compare of customer and.

C

I equality, compare customers.

A

They're equally compare off customer. If you have an equity compare of object, that's not compatible! You have to come. You.

C

Can pass in an equality compare you can pass in ie quality compare evolved if it is legal to be back, because that would be a variance.

D

As an argument, it's an inclusive, no.

A

Will be the other way around right if I have an iclicker pair of customer I kind of sign it to something as I quote, if you compare off off, you know other way around. It's.

C

Been eating saying its marked out its marked in because it takes T as an input parameter. If it returns to you, then yes, it would be I equate I equality. Compare of customer could go to all equality. Compare of object.

C

Yeah so I just like think it's a variant. I, don't I, don't remember curses contra. Where are the cushions that which which direction is leave it? It will work like if you do new half set of customer and then pass in reference equality, dog, Vincent, civil dress,.

C

You can't pass it in for half of into, though that will cause problems.

A

Sorry they changed the dark sides and a little fight, video guy dog that there is it searched and searched, but I I.

C

Ii numeral should be if I remember correctly, co cuz, it's an alphabet event yeah, so that would be caught.

I

M

B

And then I quote, if you compare out, would be in.

B

B

Thank you all right. All.

O

E

Four things this is high-quality. Compare of T collecting.

C

A

So, but to the point like if somebody defined it as reference equality, compare upgrades to core yeah. If, let's say there get a compiler warning, probably an.

D

Error, so if it's, if they've declared it in their same namespace, their same namespace will win with no warning if they've declared it in a utility namespace that they've done they're using import of then now the same type is visible via to use again courts. Yeah.

G

A

At the same level, and therefore it.

D

Is ambiguous so.

A

But either way like I mean whether it's a warning error. That's me it's mostly irrelevant because you change your code, didn't you make a decision which one you want to use, but I would say why would you ever use your own? Maybe your own handles moles your split compiling. How.

C

Would you handle knowledge differently from what we do? We forbid moles? Maybe you allow in return zero, forget half code. Well, we forbid not because the API is documented is for the demos and because the contain interface to the other, the implementation, the implementation that we would have just cost trading at the runtime which can't handle those so object. The reference equals those the video.

A

Outside is known: runtime helpers docket have had good throws if the input is called au for hash codes- yeah, that's fine but like for it. You should be able to compare knowledge. Oh.

D

Yeah that works just yeah yeah of equals, takes object. Question mark yeah get hash code takes yeah, it's.

C

D

You have your mash code if.

C

You know unless.

D

You know it's not it's.

C

It's assumed that get have codes only really used if you're, like hashing keys in ternary, and you really shouldn't pass that on. In that scenario, that's what yeah.

A

That one seems fine where they go, you can you keep shaking stores. Doesn't that but I'm pretty sure they're just.

C

So yeah equals allows no, no.

K

I mean like what other people have done. I don't know.

C

Any level two because they call object reference, equals the one for the hash problems. Amal does not because it calls runtime helpers gasket, so the one that was certainly on my screen was me: yeah I'm, looking at five different implementations internally, but all of them allow mole for equal, none of them alone, good husband, and we would have the same behavior as all of them. That's.

A

What I'm saying to me it sounds like I would always do deep in mine, and then you confirm I provided one it's clearly. The semantics I want.

C

In fact, one of the five that I'm looking at house the wrong implementation forget house no.

D

Windows: three: oh sorry, windows basis, not.

C

D

Is not calling runtime culpers, it's just called: oh yeah hash code. So it's.

E

Funny that guide this thing for hash said egg works, fine for castrated customer I. Grant you compare that's one. You.

J

Had an eye equality, compare I.

C

Think we should go with the reference equality for their play wrong and not make it up to you just make it reference equality to curve yeah.

A

I mean it's in a city and.

C

Then you would just call the property instances.

A

C

A

Your singleton right there yeah yeah.

D

And then the other the option that is I think more sane than this one is just doing an aquaria equality. Compare of tea, because all teas that are reference types would hit the they collapse into the same generic instantiation, but I think it's cleaner to have the reference equality type. The reference equality compared like non-generic like.

C

I, don't have a strong preference between the two and.

D

Because most people seem to have them for winners and Eric they're not going to get type conflict because one of them uses new limit eat. The other way.

E

For another object.

C

It froze myself and let me double check that before I commit.

C

It's supposed to thermal.

D

Yeah there's an argument: no there's no reference.

D

It just exit the CLR within diamond program crashes.

D

And Jared would love that behaviour. It's like coming back.

C

It returns Europe, great okay, whatever I don't care so you buy and you support. Oh yeah, okay, argh, that's whatever my line.

D

Documentation says, don't give me, no something happens. Yeah, okay,.

C

So in the implicit implementation, I would just say: I would mark it with a question mark and say whatever go not know.

E

C

It has been wave left because it turns out one time: helpers house, it I.

E

See so let me go away from the interface right. Is that true one I guess it.

L

Doesn't matter.

M

What do they do for that for another? The return to your keep it from zero. Okay,.

M

Take the vengeance document to the South Shore Pinterest. Are you tossing that document? Oh.

B

B

P

See I am so very sad happy within months.

E

You forgot, the methods equals a gradual, well.

A

I mean they're: just you have to implement them right.

M

A

Them implicitly, okay, yeah sure, but.

M

It doesn't matter that Texas.

A

Is implicitly mean it's like it's just it's basically the same signature. So then, what's the point right, there's more, you don't really.

E

Have right because we're changing on ability, okay, good yeah! That's why I'm saying I mean.

D

Are the guys on explicitly implementing interfaces? Is don't do it unless we yeah.

A

What time will save you should? Not all I'm saying is I'm not bothering with an API that is effectively there.

D

Would be not confusing and there's no technical leader, so it should not be explicit. It should be complicit important to universes yeah.

C

Runtime helpers talk, it hash code, says I, don't accept nor so I'm just going to leave the same annotations on this API and if it accepts know whatever yeah. Okay, there's no point.

E

In the face, except under the.

C

I company does not oh yeah, yeah I'll just keep the same annotation and if it accepts know what exceptional yeah.

D

Yeah I, like them I, think the method should be visibly declared and implicitly conform to the interfaces, because there's not a reason to make them explicitly just.

D

And introducing fungoides that way, you know nobody. If somebody feels like writing reference equality. Compare her records, equality, compare instance not equals and I could get through. Dodge it'd be like their November is on this I feel like what so like. There's no reason to hide. Remember: yeah I also.

A

Don't think when an ability annotation in the matter there's no way to go about call them yeah.

E

Nobody behavior can hash code for Van Putten null object is important. Yeah.

A

Sure, but it's obviously think, given that you never call the AP is or are you passed, the incidence or else call the api's, but the other person calls them through the interface like they effectively meaningless, yeah.

M

A

You have to day basis documentation by that point. You might just talk to him at the behavior oriented.

D

No one would ever cover the quality references, yeah.

C

D

Shorten later do they might that's the.

C

Thing like they might not realize that reference equals is amazing, I think yeah, that's the only thing I can think of yeah, but.

D

Anyway, there's no reason: there's no reason to.

E

D

The members, so we should be something- is a dot. What documentation of you.

E

Work for that yeah.

C

We would put us an alarm off I.

D

Mean the documentation will probably like runtime help. They simply do not talk about Blackman's. If you give us all the metadata says, don't get me now.

M

All right, first on the right we know and.

D

That's new all.

B

Right so we ran out of time, sweet.

A

There's a really online and then see you next week.