on Mon Apr 25 2016, Erica Sadun <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > On Apr 25, 2016, at 7:15 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> 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 > <swift-evolution@swift.org> 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
There are walks along countable sets (for example, the set of Ints bounded by two UnsafePointer<Int>s) and walks along uncountable sets (for example, the rational numbers between 0 and 1). > * 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. Thanks for the update. FWIW I don't expect anything of anyone; I just wanted to let everybody involved know that it could still get fixed for Swift 3 but we'll need to move fast. Cheers, -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution