on Wed Jun 22 2016, David Waite <david-AT-alkaline-solutions.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> <Ahem> “Iterators,” please. > > That makes me happy - for some reason I thought it was still GeneratorProtocol > >>> destructively, but such Generators would not conform to the needs of >>> Sequence. As such, the most significant impact would be the inability >>> to use such Generators in a for..in loop, >> >> Trying to evaluate this statement, it's clear we're missing lots of >> detail here: >> >> * Would you remove Sequence? >> * If so, what Protocol would embody “for...in-able?” > No, I would just remove the allowance in the documentation and API > design for a destructive/consuming iteration. Sequence would be the > interface to getting access to repeatable iteration, without the need > for meeting the other requirements for Collection. That would be wrong unless there exist substantial examples of a multipass Sequence that *can't* meet the other requirements of Collection without loss of efficiency. And since I can write an adaptor that turns any multipass sequence into a Collection, I think it's trivial to prove that no such examples exist. -- -Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
