It seems that there is a consensus that this proposal might be a good
addition to the standard library. All comments on this thread in the past
few weeks were related to naming, not around the behaviour or validity of
the proposed methods. So I will submit this proposal for review very soon
assuming that nobody else has strong arguments against it. :-)
Proposal:
https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/more-lenient-subscripts/proposals/nnnn-more-lenient-collections-subscripts.md
If you have any corrections or suggestions to the proposal text itself,
please comment on this gist:
https://gist.github.com/luish/832c34ee913159f130d97a914810dbd8
(or pull request to my repo)
Regards,
- Luis
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Luis Henrique B. Sousa
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Please let me know if you have more suggestions or corrections on
this proposal.
I'm tempted to submit it for review. :-)
- Luis
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Luis Henrique B. Sousa
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
It sounds good, thanks for you suggestions @Vladimir, @Patrick
and @Brent.
I've just updated the proposal:
https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/more-lenient-subscripts/proposals/nnnn-more-lenient-collections-subscripts.md#detailed-design
- Luis
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yes, I feel like 'within' is much better than 'bounded'.
How about such changes in proposal:
a[bounded: -1 ..< 5] --> a[within: -1 ..< 5] (or a[inside:
-1 ..< 5] )
a[optional: 0 ..< 5] --> a[checking: 0 ..< 5]
a[optional: 5] --> a[checking: 5]
?
On 10.05.2016 6:27, Patrick Smith via swift-evolution wrote:
I like the idea of the of the bounded subscript, however
the optional one I
feel could be used for clumsy code.
.first and .last have value, but once you start stepping
several arbitrary
indices in, then that code is likely fragile?
I can think of ‘within’, ‘inside’ and ‘intersecting’ as
alternative names
for ‘bounded’ that attempt to explain what is going on:
let a = [1, 2, 3]
a[within: 0 ..< 5] // [1, 2, 3]
a[inside: 0 ..< 5] // [1, 2, 3]
a[intersecting: 0 ..< 5] // [1, 2, 3]
On 28 Apr 2016, at 10:11 PM, Luis Henrique B. Sousa
via swift-evolution
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>> 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]>
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
