> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
-1
> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or
> an in-depth study?
More than a quick reading, but not really “in-depth” study…
> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
I don’t really think it does. I don’t remember anything in Swift that went
through such a bizarre change just because it looks ugly.
I mean, the where clause isn’t a comment; it’s not documentation. It’s
absolutely vital to anybody and everybody who uses anything with one. Really, I
can’t see any logic to splitting the parameter name and constraints. It’s
completely baffling, and if it wasn’t that they’re “ugly” I don’t think anybody
would give this proposal a second thought. Besides, when I need to look up
which parameters I need for a type, it’s nice to have them all in one place in
a clearly delimited section of the declaration.
> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to
> Swift?
> * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how
> do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
I’m with Jon Shier on this - it is a problem, but it’s one inherent to
generics. In some languages, you have great big whoppers for type parameters
and have to pass them around everywhere you go; we’re relatively clean with
Swift. Nobody writing swift should complain about our type parameters being too
messy:
interface Feeder<F extends Food, A extends Animal<F,?>, S extends Store<F>> {
public void buyFoodAndFeed(A animal, S store);
}
class StoreFeeder implements Feeder<Grass, Animal<Grass, ?>, Store<Grass>> {
public void buyFoodAndFeed(Animal<Grass, ?> animal, Store<Grass> store) {
animal.eat(store.buyFood());
}
}
I have a counter-proposal to tackle the readability issue: that we extend
SE-0048: Generic Typealiases [1] to include where clauses. The proposal already
mentions this, and simply says "If there is a compelling reason to add this, we
can consider extending the model to support them in the future, based on the
merits of those reasons.” If we did that, we could drastically shorten
function/class declarations - using, say, “StringCollection” or
“IntegerSequence” rather than <C:Collection where C.Iterator.Element==String>.
[1](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0048-generic-typealias.md)
> On 10 May 2016, at 20:51, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Swift community,
>
> The review of "SE-0081: Move where clause to end of declaration" begins now
> and runs through May 16. The proposal is available here:
>
>
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0081-move-where-expression.md
>
> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews
> should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at
>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review
> manager.
>
> What goes into a review?
>
> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review
> through constructive criticism and contribute to the direction of Swift. When
> writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your
> review:
>
>
> More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
>
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md
>
> Thank you,
>
> -Chris Lattner
> Review Manager
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
