On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrah...@apple.com> wrote: > > on Sat Apr 02 2016, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu-AT-gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snip] >> >> Not included: >> 1. I know Ranges are in flux, so I've held off on extending Range with >> a striding(by:) method in this proof-of-concept. > > They're not in flux, except for not having been reviewed yet; they are > settled in the swift-3-indexing-model branch.
Did not know that. Will have to study what's there in more detail. >> 2. No attempt at the suggested stride(from:to:steps:) quite yet. > > #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive; we prefer #1 as it removes questions > about the meaning of "to" or "through." I wasn't aware that was the thinking. Limiting strides to `striding(by:)` removes the ability to express `stride(from: 0, to: -10, by: -1)` because Range enforces (and it looks like it will continue to do so in the swift-3-indexing-model branch?) `lowerBound <= upperBound`, and in a half-open range it's the upper bound that's excluded. >> 2. No tests written yet for this proof-of-concept; I noticed that >> there's a stub for testing strides with bounds of type Double, but >> there's a comment about things not being ready because Double conforms >> to RandomIndexType--not sure what to make of that. > > Comments in that branch are badly out-of-date. It's worth trying that, > especially since there is no RandomAccessIndexType in that branch any > longer. > >> 3. Haven't gotten around to testing performance. _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution