> On Nov 1, 2017, at 14:54, Kelvin Ma via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 07:24 Daryle Walker wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 07:24 Daryle Walker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>>
>> Right, these
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 07:24 Daryle Walker wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 31, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
> Right, these issues were discussed when the proposal was introduced and
> reviewed three times. In brief, what was once proposed
Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 31, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
> Right, these issues were discussed when the proposal was introduced and
> reviewed three times. In brief, what was once proposed as `Integer` was
> renamed `BinaryInteger` to avoid confusion in name
Right, these issues were discussed when the proposal was introduced and
reviewed three times. In brief, what was once proposed as `Integer` was
renamed `BinaryInteger` to avoid confusion in name between `Integer` and
`Int`. It was also found to better reflect the semantics of the protocol,
as
Just for the reference. There was a lengthy discussion here in the mailing list
back when the proposal was introduced:
https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/thread.html#30191
Looking at Apple’s Swift (4) docs at their SDK site, shouldn’t there be an
“Integer” protocol between Numeric and BinaryInteger? Without that, there’s no
solution for Integer types that are either a non-binary radix or a non-radix
system (besides being over-broad with Numeric).
What would move