I understand you feel this way, but this thread is a formal review of specific amendments to SE-0104. Those amendments are, again, the following:
* Reorganizing shift operators * Removing the ArithmeticOverflow type in favor of using a simple Bool * Changing BinaryInteger's initializers that convert from floating point values * Renaming BinaryInteger's init(extendingOrTruncating:) On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 02:08 Haravikk via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > > On 21 Jul 2017, at 02:01, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >> > > I agree with Howard on both points; In particular I've never agreed with > the removal of BitwiseOperations, and believe it to be a mistake. What's > the point of making Integers more protocol-oriented if you then go about > getting rid of useful protocols? > _______________________________________________ > 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
