Could this be addressed by allowing generic constraints on subscripts?
For example, with methods we can currently do:
struct Foo {
var values:[Any] = []
func get<T>(at:Int) -> T? {
return values.indices.contains(at) ? values[at] as? T : nil
}
func get<T>(at:Int, as theType:T.Type) -> T? {
return values.indices.contains(at) ? values[at] as? T : nil
}
mutating func set<T>(at:Int, to:T) {
if values.indices.contains(at) { values[at] = to }
}
}
let foo = Foo(values: [1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 1, 2, 3])
let a = foo.get(at: 0, as: Double.self)
let b:Double = foo.get(at: 1)!
let c:Int? = foo.get(at: 2)
let d = foo.get(at: 3, as: Double.self)
let e:Int = foo.get(at: 4)!
let f = foo.get(at: 5, as: Int.self)
i.e- the type is inferred from the call-site either with an explicit variable
type, or by passing in the expected type as the second argument, which I think
is a pretty neat way to do it.
If we could do the same with subscripts we could do something like:
struct Foo {
var values:[Any] = []
subscript<T>(_ at:Int) -> T? {
get { return values.indices.contains(at) ? values[at] as? T :
nil }
set { if values.indices.contains(at) { values[at] = newValue } }
}
subscript<T>(_ at:Int, as theType:T.Type) -> T? {
return values.indices.contains(at) ? values[at] as? T : nil
}
}
let foo = Foo(values: [1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 1, 2, 3])
let a = foo[0, as: Double.self]
let b:Double = foo[1]!
let c:Int? = foo[2]
let d = foo[3, as: Double.self]
let e:Int = foo[4]!
let f = foo[5, as: Int.self]
Are generic constraints on subscripts part of the generics manifesto?
> On 17 Nov 2016, at 20:14, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Swift community,
>
> while building a framework for BSON I had the following idea.
>
> Here is a snippet of some code I do have in my module:
>
> extension Array where Element == Document.Value {
>
> public func double(at index: Int) -> Double? {
>
> guard self.startIndex <= index && index < self.endIndex else { return
> nil }
>
> if case .double(let double) = self[index] {
>
> return double
> }
> return nil
> }
>
> …
> }
> This function is used to query the array and check if the element at the
> given index is of a specific type. Now I would like also to implement a
> semi-schema setter.
>
> The problem that I see, is the ugliness of the subscript I’d create.
>
> Currently the code would read nicely let d = array.double(at: 42), but after
> change to a subscript the API would look odd array[doubleAt: 42] = 5.0.
>
> Don’t get me wrong here, I also have methods with larger names like public
> func scopedJavaScript(at index: Int) -> …. You can easily imagine that such
> subscripts would look ugly array[scopedJavaScriptAt: 123] = ….
>
> I propose to align the design of subscript with functions where one could
> optionally give subscript a name.
>
> func name(label parameter: Type) -> ReturnType
>
> subscript optionalName(label parameter: Type) -> ReturnType
> This change would make my API nice and clean. array.scopedJavaScript[at: 213]
> = …
>
> This also might be the opportunity to rethink the labeling rule on
> subscripts, but this shall not be the main focus of this pitch.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
