On Apr 25, 2016, at 7:15 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yup, we're going to try to touch base, the authors of the current draft that > is, sometime this week. More to come, hopefully. > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > After some reflection, I don't really want to see a construct like #3 in > the standard library, and Chris has clarified for me that the standard > library doesn't need to solve the migration problems created by the > removal of C-style “for” loops. So, if I have inadvertently killed > progress on this proposal by bringing it up, please allow me to retract > item 3 above.
* Strides break down into: walks along the integer number line and walks along the floating point number line. We need to fix the math * For in need to work for collections, integer ranges, and strides for basic iteration. * Advanced `for` work is already addressed with mapping and Kevin Ballard's proposed iterate and takeWhile * Everyone but me has been traveling so getting things together has been a little hard. * I have been on Nate's case a lot about what collections, strides, sequences, etc mean and should be named. -- E
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
