> On Jul 26, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Jose Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we are missing some sort of diff to show the impact of this proposal > similar to what we had for the “grand renaming"
The proposal itself shows the impact. * Full list of renamed methods: <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0132-sequence-end-ops.md#sequence-end-operations-1> * New patterns for redesigned `prefix(upTo/through:)` and `suffix(from:)` APIs: <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0132-sequence-end-ops.md#impact-on-existing-code> * Source-compatible method/subscript signature changes to work with RangeExpression: <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0132-sequence-end-ops.md#index-based-operations-1> Compared to the Great Renaming, this proposal has a tiny footprint: • 11 methods renamed, with stubs for @available attributes left in extensions on Sequence or Collection • 3 methods removed (replaced with new subrange syntax) • 2 types and 6 operators added for incomplete ranges • 1 protocol added for RangeExpression • 2 subscripts and 2 methods in 3 protocols changed to work with RangeExpression I'm working on an implementation (so far I just have `dropFirst` renamed, but I've only spent about half an hour on it, mostly waiting for tests), but the diff isn't really going to tell you much. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
