> On Feb 21, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > The re-review of SE-0104 "Protocol-oriented integers" begins now and runs > through February 25, 2017. This proposal was accepted for Swift 3, but was > not implemented in time for the release. The revised proposal is available > here: > > > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0104-improved-integers.md > > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0104-improved-integers.md> > > > • What is your evaluation of the proposal? > > Well worth while. Few nit picks: > > 1. Number.init? Description should say BinaryInteger not floating-point. I’ll update the proposal.
> 2. Number should document that mutating versions of operators can overflow. > 3. SignedNumber should document that negate and unary `-` can overflow. Documentation changes noted. Thanks! > 4. SignedNumber, it is weird that `signum` is a function when other similar > things, e.g. `magnitude`, are properties. I think of it as: magnitude is something the number ‘has’ whereas signum is a completely new thing of the same type. > 5. Not worth representing `DoubleWidth` as an enumeration, it is obscure > and therefore will only confuse people. > 6. It would be better to put the 'extra' operations into the protocols and > provide default implementations, otherwise they are difficult to find. They are defined as protocol extensions, therefore they should be discoverable through completion and in the generated source code. Or what do you mean by ‘difficult to find’? Thanks for the feedback! > > • Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > to Swift? > > Yes, the current design has not served my purpose on more than one occasion > > • Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? > > Yes > > • If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, > how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? > > Yes, this proposal is similar to what other languages provide, e.g. Scala. In > Scala however they tackle the `conversion problem as well in their `traits > heirarchy. I guess this could be added at a later date. > > • How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? > > Read the proposal, have used similar features in other languages, and have > had trouble with Swift's current heirarchy. > -- > -- Howard. > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
