> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
+1 for most of the proposal
-1 for the slicing subscripts
This proposal is well researched, and well written and makes total sense. I
totally agree that a renaming is required and I agree with most of the proposal
for the exception of the slicing subscripts. If the goal of the proposal was to
make those APIs easily discoverable, then those subscripts go completely
against that:
You need to know that the subscripts exist and if you are looking for a method,
you will never find them.
They use a new type which is never used anywhere else.
On a more general note, creating new types in the Standard Library only to
serve as arguments for those fairly rarely used subscripts sounds very
heavy-weight.
I vote for keeping functions for those operations.
> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change
> to Swift?
Yes.
> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
Yes, except for the subscripts, which look fairly alien to me.
> * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature,
> how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
No.
> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
> reading, or an in-depth study?
Followed the original pitch, gave some feedback, re-read the proposal for the
official review and spent a day pondering it.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
