on Mon Apr 11 2016, Joe Groff <[email protected]> wrote: >> • Because Swift is unable to express conditional protocol > conformances, implementing this change has required us to create a > great deal of complexity in the standard library API. Aside from the > two excess “Countable” range types, there are new overloads for > slicing and twelve distinct slice types that capture all the > combinations of traversal, mutability, and range-replaceability. While > these costs are probably temporary, they are very real in the > meantime. > > Is there a migration strategy possible for when we do support > conditional conformances?
Anything is possible ;-) > Would typealiasing the existing names to refinements of a more general > Slice<T> type be sufficient? Maybe. It depends on your goals. *Some* code will break no matter what we do. -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
