The proposed additions to Indexible only require Indices… I don't see how adding them is such a mistake. If we can gain these behaviors while only *requiring* that minimum interface… go for it.
TJ On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure about the rest of this, but... > > >> 1. A backwards-compatible refactoring of `CollectionType.indices`, > moving it to `Indexable`. > >> > >> 2. A backwards-compatible refactoring of `indexOf(…)` (adding optional > `range:` and moving it to `Indexable`). > >> > >> 3. The addition of `rangeOf(…)`, `countOf(…)` and `isSorted(…)` to > `Indexable` with a TIME complexity of `O(self.count)`. > >> > >> 4. The introduction of a `BinarySearchView` on `Indexable`, allowing > for fast (`O(log2(self.count))`) searches on `Indexable` via `indexOf(…)`, > `rangeOf(…)`, `countOf(…)`, `lowerBoundOf(…)`, `upperBoundOf(…)` without > cluttering `Indexable`'s interface. > > I don't think you quite understand what `Indexable` is for. > > `Indexable` is a minimal protocol containing the very most basic parts of > `CollectionType`'s interface. It's used to avoid circular definitions in > `CollectionType`. The doc comments on it describe it as "almost an > implementation detail". I don't think it's appropriate to move a whole > bunch of stuff into `Indexable` when it's supposed to be a minimal protocol. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
