Hi Howard, The removal of BitwiseOperations is not under review here; that, like signum(), has been considered twice and approved twice, and has not been revised.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 19:36 Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > The revised version of the proposal can be found here: >> >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0104-improved-integers.md >> >> • What is your evaluation of the proposal? >> > > Overall +1. Two reservations: > > 1. Functions like `signum()` that return a property would read better as > a property! > 2. I have found `BitwiseOperations` useful as an extension to both Bool > and Set and for a custom set type. Therefore would prefer its retention and > even more preferably that Bool and Set implement it. > > • Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to >> Swift? >> > > Yes, generic representation of integers is useful. > > >> • Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? >> > > Yes, particularly the re-arrangment of the protocol hierarchy is in > keeping with the rest of the restructuring of the standard library. > > >> • If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, >> how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? >> > > Yes, many languages I use allow generic numeric functions to be written > and I write my own numeric functions and will therefore use these protocols. > > >> • How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick >> reading, or an in-depth study? >> > > Quick read, but have pulled my hair out trying to write generic stuff in > Swift as it stands now. > _______________________________________________ > 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
