I support this proposal. Probably we all should select the best labels
(truncate/lenient or other). As not native English speaker, I don't feel
like 'lenient' is well-known word or often-used word in software
development. But all this just a details we need to discuss.
What I think could be improved - is a motivation section. IMO the main
purpose of proposed features is not to "eliminate the need for validations,
reduce the number of fatal errors in runtime" but to allow us to have more
clean code when *such validations just don't required*, when we just *don't
care* about details.
I.e. in situations, when we'll use [max(-1, a.startIndex) ..< min(5,
a.endIndex)] and bounds checking manually to have the same result as in
proposed subscripts.
I.e. it is just a very handy addition to standard methods for collections,
just like we can get first element by index but we have handy property
'.first' for this purpose. Btw, it does not raise error, but returns T?. I
think you can add notes regarding analogues with .first / .last
properties(and probably with other) in proposal text.
Someone can argue, that by using these subscripts, coders can write 'bad'
code - but I can't accept such an argument - 'bad' coders already can write
'bad' code with other features of Swift and at the end they can implement
these subscripts in their project and write 'bad' code. Should we stop to
introduce handy and explicit feature for 'good' coders because of this?
On 28.04.2016 15:11, Luis Henrique B. Sousa via swift-evolution wrote:
As we have discussed throughout this thread, the initial proposal was
modified to include alternative subscript methods instead of modifying the
default operator/subscript behaviour.
The first draft is
here:
https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/more-lenient-subscripts/proposals/nnnn-more-lenient-collections-subscripts.md
I've also put this as a gist so that you can leave comments with respect to
the proposal document itself. Any suggestion or help is very welcome.
https://gist.github.com/luish/832c34ee913159f130d97a914810dbd8
Regards,
- Luis
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Luis Henrique B. Sousa <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This proposal seeks to provide a safer ..< (aka half-open range
operator) in order to avoid **Array index out of range** errors in
execution time.
Here is my first draft for this proposal:
https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/half-open-range-operator/proposals/nnnn-safer-half-open-range-operator.md
In short, doing that in Swift causes a runtime error:
leta =[1,2,3]
letb =a[0..<5]
print(b)
> Error running code:
> fatal error: Array index out of range
The proposed solution is to slice the array returning all elements that
are below the half-open operator, even though the number of elements is
lesser than the ending of the half-open operator. So the example above
would return [1,2,3].
We can see this very behaviour in other languages, such as Python and
Ruby as shown in the proposal draft.
This would eliminate the need for verifications on the array size
before slicing it -- and consequently runtime errors in cases when the
programmer didn't.
Viewing that it is my very first proposal, any feedback will be helpful.
Thanks!
Luis Henrique Borges
@luishborges
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
