> On Apr 6, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Dave Abrahams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > on Wed Apr 06 2016, Erica Sadun <erica-AT-ericasadun.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 6, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Dave Abrahams <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> These all look reasonable to me. >> >> Lastly, if you want the positive stride reversed, you'd do just that: >> >> (0 ... 9).striding(by: 2).reverse() == [8, 6, 4, 2, 0] >> >> Also reasonable. >> >> -- >> Dave >> >> Unless there's a compelling reason to fight here, it looks like the >> opinion against where I'm standing is pretty overwhelming at least in >> this subgroup. To simplify things going forward (and to avoid compiler >> warnings, which as Dave A points out is probably an indication of bad >> design more than bad users), I'm willing to adopt in as well. > > Thanks. In that case, I suggest that we entertain two separate > proposals: > > 1. add the .striding(by: n) method. > 2. add the other range operators. > > Though they both have obvious benefits, I expect #1 is a much easier > sell than #2, which is one good reason to separate them. > > -- > Dave
I may have misunderstood the intent so I want to clarify: Dave, you'd like to push on these now (starting with #1) and not wait for the rest of the Range stuff to come online, right? -- E _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
