> 1. We could go ahead and make this separation. Although it's a potentially > large breaking change, I would argue that because the methods are ill-defined > anyway, the breakage is justified and a net benefit. > > 2. We could try and think of a way to make the distinction between ordered > and unordered "sequences" in a less-breaking manner. Unfortunately, I don't > have a good suggestion for this, but if anyone has ideas, I'm all ears. Or > eyes, as the case may be.
It occurred to me, if we keep (and document) Sequence as unordered and move all the ordered methods to a new OrderedSequence, then we'd only be breaking truly broken code and we could even potentially offer a fix-it to change Sequence to OrderedSequence when we see the user using the ordered methods in places where we can see and change the generic definition. I think I'd still prefer Iterable/Sequence as far as naming, but this may be a more acceptable change, and I'd rather have this than no change. _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
