Re: [swift-users] Equality is broken, isn't it?

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Alexey Komnin via swift-users > wrote: > > Here is the code: > >let a: String = "abc" >let b: NSString = "abc" > >assert(a == b) >assert(a.hashValue == b.hashValue, "a.hashValue(\(a.hashValue)) != >

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

on Wed Jul 06 2016, Austin Zheng wrote: > Would this require a swift-evolution review, since it's technically an API > change? (removing the initializer requirement is something I am also > interested in seeing...) Yes. -- Dave ___ swift-users

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

on Wed Jul 06 2016, Tim Vermeulen wrote: > RangeReplaceableCollection has three initialisers: init(), init(_:) > and init(repeating:count:). The latter two are implemented using the > empty initialiser. But why are these initialisers part of this > particular protocol? As far as I can tell, no

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

The same is true for protocols such as `RandomAccessCollection` and `MutableCollection`. > On 6 Jul 2016, at 22:07, Tino Heth <2...@gmx.de> wrote: > > >> I thought this was it, but none of the default implementations of >> RangeReplaceableCollection seem to use this empty initialiser > I

Re: [swift-users] Generate Swift interface from Objective-C file using clang

The best way I know of is the swift-ide-test tool, and you’ll see it being invoked by many of the ClangImporter tests. > On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Ryan Wilson via swift-users > wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > In Xcode, I can generate a Swift interface for an Objective-C

[swift-users] Generate Swift interface from Objective-C file using clang

Hi everyone, In Xcode, I can generate a Swift interface for an Objective-C file by using the assistant editor and selecting "Generated Interface" from the menu of what to display. How would I go about generating this using the tools in the Swift repo from GitHub? I've been digging around the

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

I thought this was it, but none of the default implementations of RangeReplaceableCollection seem to use this empty initialiser (except for the two other initialisers and `removeAll(keepingCapacity:)`, the latter of which can be implemented using `removeSubrange(_:)` instead). This makes me

Re: [swift-users] Equality is broken, isn't it?

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Alexey Komnin via swift-users > wrote: > > Here is the code: > >let a: String = "abc" >let b: NSString = "abc" > >assert(a == b) >assert(a.hashValue == b.hashValue, "a.hashValue(\(a.hashValue)) != >

Re: [swift-users] Specifying A Dynamic Type In Swift Generics

Yes, that is what I thought too. But when I try to do it, I get this error: Error:(57, 23) 'Self' is only available in a protocol or as the result of a method in a class; did you mean 'AppEvent’? Thanks, Jon On 7/5/16, 12:15, "swift-users-boun...@swift.org on behalf of Kenny Leung via

Re: [swift-users] Expression pattern cannot be a named tuple constant

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:55, Neil Faiman wrote: > > It’s actually more complicated than that. > > case (0, 0): is a tuple-pattern, so its interpretation is well defined. case > int_1_1: must be an expression-pattern, since it does’t match any of the > other pattern

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

I am not a software scientist. I have to explain things with examples. For example, in Framework headers. extension Array : RangeReplaceableCollection { > /// Creates a new, empty array. > /// > /// This is equivalent to initializing with an empty array literal. > /// For example:

Re: [swift-users] Equality is broken, isn't it?

I wouldn’t expect String and NSString to have identical implementations of hashValue(). Is there a problem you’re having that this example is meant to illustrate? I can see this being an issue if you’re building your own collection type for strings. Jeff Kelley slauncha...@gmail.com |

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

I never said a RangeReplaceableCollection shouldn’t be empty. I just think it’s strange that it requires an empty initialiser (while the Collection protocol doesn’t). > On 6 Jul 2016, at 16:33, Zhao Xin wrote: > > N​o. You didn't catch what I meant. I meant it should be like

Re: [swift-users] Expression pattern cannot be a named tuple constant

It’s actually more complicated than that. case (0, 0): is a tuple-pattern, so its interpretation is well defined. case int_1_1: must be an expression-pattern, since it does’t match any of the other pattern kinds. So it should compare the value of the pattern expression case_1_1 against the

Re: [swift-users] Equivalent of NS_SWIFT_UNAVAILABLE for non-methods?

Another option is to rename them manually: typedef NS_OPTIONS(NSInteger, FoodType) { dairyFood NS_SWIFT_NAME(dairy) = 1 << 0 , meatFood NS_SWIFT_NAME(meat) = 1 << 1 , mushroomFood NS_SWIFT_NAME(mushroomMushroom) = 1 << 2 }; On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Matteo via swift-users

Re: [swift-users] Equivalent of NS_SWIFT_UNAVAILABLE for non-methods?

It'd be nice if there was a predefined macro to let you know if you're inside of the header generation machinery. Last time I grazed the compiler it didn't set up any custom symbols in the preprocessor it uses for the first stage of processing the generated header. (rdar://27195567 - would like

Re: [swift-users] another issue with tuples

The section you are referencing is regarding ‘assignment’; however, in the example below we aren’t talking about assignment, this is 'constant-declaration', which is different than a ‘parenthesized expression’. But overall I get it, and I think I’m trending toward the same conclusion you

Re: [swift-users] another issue with tuples

The language reference says that “Assignment is performed from each part of the value to the corresponding part of the expression. A String value can be assigned to a String, and a () -> Int value can be assigned to a () throws -> Int, so one would reasonably expect that both tuple assignments

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

You wouldn’t need an empty initialiser to remove all elements from a collection, right? You could just use `replaceRange` instead. > Now I understood you concerns. Have you ever thought of if a non-empty > RangeReplaceableCollection being removed all of its elements, which makes the >

Re: [swift-users] Expression pattern cannot be a named tuple constant

I’m not convinced that I see this as a bug, maybe more of a feature request? The test given seems to be conflating a tuple-type with tuple-pattern… Shane > On Jul 5, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Neil Faiman via swift-users > wrote: > > SR-1993. > >> On Jul 5, 2016, at 4:15 PM,

Re: [swift-users] another issue with tuples

Aaron this works for me in both Swift 2.2 and Swift 3 provided that you remove the ‘throws’ keyword. What seems odd to me is not the first assignment, but rather the second that _allows_ the use of ‘throws’ when t.1 (i.e. f) does not throw - is your concern the same? Shane On Jul 5, 2016,

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

Now I understood you concerns. Have you ever thought of if a non-empty RangeReplaceableCollection being removed all of its elements, which makes the collection to be an empty collection. That shouldn't change the RangeReplaceableCollection to be a non-RangeReplaceableCollection. So the empty

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

I’m not allowing generic subscripts. The collection is declared as `AnyIndexArray` and it can be subscripted with type `Index`. Either way, it’s not really important. I’m mostly wondering why RangeReplaceableCollection needs an empty initialiser. > Then how you defined the index to conform

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

Then how you defined the index to conform to Strideable? Below code does work as it seams that you can't use generics in subscripts. subscript(index:T) -> Element Zhaoxin On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Tim Vermeulen wrote: > > On 6 Jul 2016, at 14:03, Zhao Xin

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

> On 6 Jul 2016, at 14:03, Zhao Xin wrote: > > According to the document of Swift 3, Array has already conformed protocol > RangeReplaceableCollection. That’s exactly why I also want to conform my wrapper to that protocol? I think there’s a misunderstanding. I’m making a

Re: [swift-users] Where did “powl” go?

It seems like Swift has broken a lot of the export functionality. Some of the exporting system was actually a bug but resulting in useful functionality (i.e like importing C Macros as enums). But once fixed we lost a lot of it. *___* *James⎥Head of Trolls*

Re: [swift-users] Why does RangeReplaceableCollection require an empty initialiser?

According to the document of Swift 3, Array has already conformed protocol RangeReplaceableCollection. Zhaoxin On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Tim Vermeulen via swift-users < swift-users@swift.org> wrote: > RangeReplaceableCollection has three initialisers: init(), init(_:) and >

Re: [swift-users] [Bug or ByDesign?] unowned optional values not allowed

> On 5 Jul 2016, at 18:21, Jordan Rose wrote: > > Longstanding bug, rdar://problem/17277899 . > Surprisingly few people have asked for it. > > Jordan > Good to know, thanks. Maybe not enough people know/care about the overheads of weak references? Since the WWDC

[swift-users] Equivalent of NS_SWIFT_UNAVAILABLE for non-methods?

Suppose I have an existing enum in Obj-C such as: typedef NS_OPTIONS(NSInteger, FoodType) { dairyFood = 1 << 0, meatFood= 1 << 1, mushroomFood = 1 << 2 }; I want to rename all the values so that swift code can use the shorter names. i.e typedef NS_OPTIONS(NSInteger, FoodType)

Re: [swift-users] another issue with tuples

Tuple is not designed to be used as commonly as classes and structs. NOTE > Tuples are useful for temporary groups of related values. They are not > suited to the creation of complex data structures. If your data structure > is likely to persist beyond a temporary scope, model it as a class or >