>
> These may be compact, but some programmer may fell that they are not in
> control: do these "stdlib" seq(), c.filter() pre-calculate all the entries
> (wasting precious cpu cycle if one break out early) or are each value
> dynamically created? Having an explicit legacy loop format gives a feel of
> control. So something like
>
> for i from 2 to 1_000_000 by 1 where i % 2 != 0 while foundCount < 5 {
> print(i); foundCount +=1 }
>
> sounds less magical and seems easier to predict than
>
> for i in 2.stride(to:1_000_000, by:1).filter({ $0 % 2 != 0}).prefix(5) {
> print(i) }
>
> and is still quite readable, even if it mixes for loop, while loop and even
> simple condition.
>
I disagree. I think the first case is venturing dangerously close to the
AppleScript “uncanny valley” of human language-like programming verbs where I
never know the exact words and exact order for things. The second example is
right out of any functional programming mold, and I fully understand what’s
happening, and how to decompose the process to test assumptions. Also, I know
how to implement the second case (more or less) from scratch, and that’s pretty
huge for me.
- Will
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
