Skip to content

Fix Typos #110

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 3, 2015
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 4 additions & 4 deletions docs/CallingConvention.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ want it to be.

It's a basic assumption in this paper that Swift shouldn't make an
implicit promise to exactly match the default platform calling
convention. That is, if a C or ObjC programmer manages to derive the
convention. That is, if a C or Objective-C programmer manages to derive the
address of a Swift function, we don't have to promise that an obvious
translation of the type of that function will be correctly callable
from C. For example, this wouldn't be guaranteed to work::
Expand All @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ from C. For example, this wouldn't be guaranteed to work::
We do sometimes need to be able to match C conventions, both to use
them and to generate implementations of them, but that level of
compatibility should be opt-in and site-specific. If Swift would
benefit from internally using a better convention than C/ObjC uses,
benefit from internally using a better convention than C/Objective-C uses,
and switching to that convention doesn't damage the dynamic abilities
of our target platforms (debugging, dtrace, stack traces, unwinding,
etc.), there should be nothing preventing us from doing so. (If we
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ physical conventions.
Ownership transfer conventions
==============================

Arguments and results that require cleanup, like an ObjC object
Arguments and results that require cleanup, like an Objective-C object
reference or a non-POD C++ object, raise two questions about
responsibility: who is responsible for cleaning it up, and when?

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -804,7 +804,7 @@ of things:
at this level both because it is affected by abstraction patterns
and because different tuple elements may use different ownership
conventions. (This is most likely for imported APIs, where it's the
tuple elements that correspond to specific C or ObjC parameters.)
tuple elements that correspond to specific C or Objective-C parameters.)

This completely eliminates top-level tuple types from the function
signature except when they are a target of abstraction and thus are
Expand Down