> On 9 Apr 2016, at 10:50, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > But, ranges are useful for more than just stride, and so I would say it > doesn't make sense to have an intrinsic direction for Range, which pointedly > has lowerBound and upperBound but not start and end. For sample, there > shouldn't be (0...9).contains(1) and (9...0).contains(1).
While I can appreciate that, I wonder if it’s really that important that 0…9 and 9…0 are identical? As long as we can be clear on which direction of range we want to generate (so probably still need two new operators), can tell what the direction is, and can convert between them if we need to for some reason (reverse should be fine for that?), then I think we’re okay. i.e- 9 … 0 would still cause an error at compile or run-time, we’d have some other operator for doing that, not sure what, plus 9 ..> 0, with both explicitly creating ranges in the reverse direction to avoid mistakes with the order or for computed indices. When it comes down to it the current Range has an implicitly forward direction, so I don’t see the problem with having the same in reverse personally. I dunno, at the very least we might want to consider overloading the striding method as .striding(forwardBy:) and .striding(backwardBy:) or something similar, each taking a positive value of some kind to help avoid mistakes in cases where the stride size is computed rather than constant, this would make it more explicit at least. > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 10:33 AM Haravikk <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > While I’m in favour of the basic idea I think the operator selection is too > complex, and I’m not sure about the need for negative strides. Really all I > want are the following: > > (0 ... 6).striding(by: 2) // [0, 2, 4, 6] x from 0 to 6 > (0 ..< 6).striding(by: 2) // [0, 2, 4] x from 0 while > <6 > (6 ... 0).striding(by: 2) // [6, 4, 2, 0] x from 6 to 0 > (6 ..> 0).striding(by: 2) // [6, 4, 2] x from 6 while > >0 > > Everything else should be coverable either by flipping the order, or using > .reverse(). The main advantage is that there’s only one new operator to > clarify the 6 ..> 0 case, though you could always just reuse the existing > operator if you just interpret it as “x from 6 to, but not including, 0" > > I dunno, I just don’t think that introducing tons of new operators is going > to simplify things, and could lead to way more mistakes in practice; the only > mistake above would be putting the indices in the wrong order and > accidentally reversing the result. > > Also, I’m against negative strides; while they could be useful for > convenience (avoid the need for .reverse or flipping values) I’m just not > sure that it makes sense. To me a stride is a distance, thus absolute, what > matters is the direction of the range. Naturally we’d need ranges with a > direction, but with collections requiring it to be in a particular order (or > ignoring it and flipping where necessary). > > >> On 8 Apr 2016, at 19:37, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > >> Draft here: https://gist.github.com/erica/a51a981ee0352235204692affa959307 >> <https://gist.github.com/erica/a51a981ee0352235204692affa959307> Feedback >> solicited, both positive and negative. >> We've also got a related proposal about expanding ranges, which you can look >> at here (https://gist.github.com/erica/af92c541a0fb69fce1b7aaf8374a5aa9 >> <https://gist.github.com/erica/af92c541a0fb69fce1b7aaf8374a5aa9>) >> but we want to float this one first. >> >> Thanks, -- E >> >> >> >> Proposal: SE-XXXX >> <https://gist.github.com/erica/a51a981ee0352235204692affa959307/edit> >> Author(s): Xiaodi Wu <https://github.com/xwu>, Pyry Jahkola >> <http://github.com/pyrtsa>, Nate Cook <http://github.com/natecook1000>, >> Erica Sadun <http://github.com/erica> >> Status: TBD >> Review manager: TBD >> >> <https://gist.github.com/erica/a51a981ee0352235204692affa959307#introduction>Introduction >> >> We propose to introduce a striding(by:) method on the revised 3.0 Range type. >> >> This proposal was discussed on the Swift Evolution list in the Feature >> proposal: Range operator with step >> <http://search.gmane.org/search.php?group=gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution&query=Feature+proposal%3A+Range+operator+with+step> >> thread. (Direct link >> <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/12801/focus=13051> >> to original thread) >> >> >> <https://gist.github.com/erica/a51a981ee0352235204692affa959307#motivation>Motivation >> >> Updating Range for Swift 3 offers a window of opportunity to simultaneously >> improve strides. >> >> Under current Swift 3 plans, n.stride(to:/through:, by:) will be replaced >> with a standalone stride(from:, to:/through:, by:) function. We propose to >> replace this change with a method on ranges. Using a method reduces overall >> API surface area compared to free functions. >> >> In its current incarnation, the standalone stride function uses confusing >> semantics. The current to implementation returns values in [start, end) and >> will never reach or get to end. The current through implementation returns >> values in [start, end]. It may never reach end and certainly never goes >> through that value. Our proposed method introduces simple, expected >> semantics that can be extended to both countable and continuous ranges, and >> to open and closed intervals (both half-open and fully-open). >> >> >> <https://gist.github.com/erica/a51a981ee0352235204692affa959307#detail-design>Detail >> Design >> >> The striding(by:) method is called on ranges. When used with a positive step >> size, the count starts from the lower bound. With a negative step size, the >> count starts from the upper bound. These bounds apply regardless of whether >> they are inclusive or exclusive. >> >> The following examples should cover all corner cases and include possible >> cases should Swift 3 introduce a full complement of open and closed ranges. >> The syntax for non-canonical range types is not fixed and can be discussed >> under separate cover. >> >> (0 ... 9).striding(by: 2) == [0, 2, 4, 6, 8] >> (0 ..< 9).striding(by: 2) == [0, 2, 4, 6, 8] >> (0 <.. 9).striding(by: 2) == [2, 4, 6, 8] >> (0 <.< 9).striding(by: 2) == [2, 4, 6, 8] >> >> (0 ... 9).striding(by: 3) == [0, 3, 6, 9] >> (0 ..< 9).striding(by: 3) == [0, 3, 6] >> (0 <.. 9).striding(by: 3) == [3, 6, 9] >> (0 <.< 9).striding(by: 3) == [3, 6] >> >> (0 ... 9).striding(by: -2) == [9, 7, 5, 3, 1] >> (0 ..< 9).striding(by: -2) == [7, 5, 3, 1] >> (0 <.. 9).striding(by: -2) == [9, 7, 5, 3, 1] >> (0 <.< 9).striding(by: -2) == [7, 5, 3, 1] >> >> (0 ... 9).striding(by: -3) == [9, 6, 3, 0] >> (0 ..< 9).striding(by: -3) == [6, 3, 0] >> (0 <.. 9).striding(by: -3) == [9, 6, 3] >> (0 <.< 9).striding(by: -3) == [6, 3] >> To reverse a stride, call reverse() on the results: >> >> (0 ... 9).striding(by: 2).reverse() == [8, 6, 4, 2, 0] >> We note that striding by 0 should be always be a precondition failure. >> >> >> <https://gist.github.com/erica/a51a981ee0352235204692affa959307#alternatives-considered>Alternatives >> Considered >> >> During the on-list discussion, we considered various scenarios that took >> closed/inclusive bounds into account or excluded open bounds for starting >> values. For example, we might have prohibited scenarios where multiple >> interpretations of an intended behavior might exist: is (0 ..< >> 9).striding(by: -2) a precondition failure? We settled on the simplest, most >> straight-forward implementation involving the fewest compiler warnings and >> the lowest likelihood of precondition failures. We subscribe to the "Dave >> Abrahams Philosophy": excessive special casing and warning scenarios more >> likely indicates bad language design than bad user comprehension. >> >> >> <https://gist.github.com/erica/a51a981ee0352235204692affa959307#future-directions>Future >> Directions >> >> We intend to follow up with an expanded operator vocabulary that includes >> fully open ranges (<.<), fully closed ranges (...) and both half open ranges >> (<.., ..<). These will support the full vocabulary laid out in the Detail >> Design section. >> >> Upon adoption, the Swift community may consider expanding this approach to >> collection indices, for example: >> >> let a = [8, 6, 7, 5, 3, 0, 9] >> for e in a.striding(by: 3) { >> print(e) // 8, then 5, then 9 >> } >> Striding offers a fundamental operation over collections. The consistent >> approach introduced in this proposal >> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/13936> helps >> support the extension of stride semantics to collections. >> >> >> <https://gist.github.com/erica/a51a981ee0352235204692affa959307#acknowlegements>Acknowlegements >> >> Thanks, Dave Abrahams, Matthew Judge >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
