Hi David, There were a few instances where this topic or similar came up at the Swift Evolution List <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160905/026923.html> and Swift Users List <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-users/Week-of-Mon-20161010/003631.html>.
There’s even this interesting proposal <https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/f99e325484a5b19ce4bab8eda18f284e4e250e7b/proposals/nnnn-more-lenient-collections-subscripts.md> that dwells with it while providing more lenient subscripts to collections. BTW, I agree with you, having the range type split is somewhat confusing, specially for those new to the language. Best, —A > On Jan 12, 2017, at 3:11 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > Since the release of Swift 3, I’ve seen quite a few people (me included) > experience a lot of friction with the new types for representing ranges. I’ve > seen people confused when writing an API that takes a Range as argument but > then can’t pass in a ClosedRange. Sometimes this can be fixed because the API > should be written against a more general protocol, but sometimes that’s not > the case. > > Those new types definitely seem to cause more problems than they fixed (the > Int.max problem). Has the Standard Library team put any thought into this? > > Regards, > David. > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
