To be honest, I have difficulty understanding the premise of this discussion. I
have always found the C-style for(;;) loop an awkward construct, because it is
essentially just an alternative form of writing a general-purpose while loop.
It is perfectly reasonable to restrict the for construct to, well, ‘for’
contexts: iterating through a sequence of items. If you need something more
complex, either write your own iterator or use a general-purpose while loop.
As discussed previously, an optimising compiler generates the same machine code
whether you are using an iterator abstraction or low-level coding. Besides, the
for .. in .. construct potentially offers more potential for optimisation,
because it makes the counter variable as well as the semantics of the entire
loop more explicit (a for(;;) can contain arbitrary stuff). Talking about
numerical algorithms: this is something I can’t understand at all. I have been
working with numerical algorithms in Python and R for years, and I have never
ever missed the C-style for loop. These languages offer convenient functions
for generating iterable sequences, which are more readable and also represent
the loop semantics much better then the for(;;;). Not to mention that the
iterator pattern allows you to write simpler and more maintainable code.
Imagine iterating through a sparse matrix or something. With a proper iterator
pattern you just do:
for (i,j,k) in matrix.indices {
}
With a for(;;) loop you’l probably end up writing a nested construct of quite
some complexity.
Swift could certainly use some improvements to its iterators (for example
something like Python generator expressions might be useful), but that is a
different topic.
To sum it up:
- for(;;) is an awkward construct which is closer to a while loop than an
actual sequence iterator pattern (that it should be)
- a proper iterator pattern is more convenient, more readable and offers the
same performance
- numerical code does not need a for(;;) construct, in fact, using the proper
iterator pattern makes writing numeric code easier, not more difficult, because
you can abstract away some common processing/aggregating steps easily, and
without any drawback
- we should think about how to improve the iterators offered by Swift standard
library, not go back to an inferior construction
— Taras
> On 21 Mar 2016, at 12:37, Greg Parker via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 12:46 AM, Dmitri Gribenko via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>> Thank you for starting this thread. I agree that removing the C-style
>> for loop has degraded the readability and clarity of some of numerics
>> code.
>>
>> In the feedback to SE-0007 many people have said that they can convert
>> their code to for-in loops, but I think this actually means that in
>> code that is typically written in Swift today, loops primarily operate
>> on sequences and collections. It means that numerics is a domain that
>> not many people work in. But it is a very important domain
>> nevertheless, and clarity for numerics code matters at least as much
>> as it does everywhere else.
>>
>> I think one way to approach this discussion would be to present
>> multiple concrete code samples that contain C-style for loops and are
>> awkward to write without them. We can then try looking for patterns,
>> generalize and simplify, and discuss possible solutions.
>
> Let me emphasize this more strongly. *Concrete*, *real-world* examples are
> quite likely the only way that you are going to get `for(;;)` back or get any
> sort of semantically-similar syntactically-different replacement.
>
> There have been lots of suggestions. None of them are perfect. If we assume
> that there is in fact no perfect solution then the only way to proceed is to
> provide sufficient justification for some imperfect solution.
>
> I'm still waiting for something like this: "We ported our code to Swift 3.
> Here are 5 reasonable-looking for(;;) loop shapes from 150 call sites, and
> here are their ugly-looking rewrites."
>
> (Personally I think removing for(;;) without direct replacement was too
> aggressive. That view lost. Now its advocates will need to do more work to
> upend the status quo.)
>
>
> --
> Greg Parker [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Runtime
> Wrangler
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
