> On Oct 18, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Thorsten Seitz <tseit...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
> Now this is not production code (hopefully) but it demonstrates the problem.
A single StackOverflow post is not convincing evidence of a problem that leads
to many real-world bugs. No one here would dispute that people can get
confused. That’s why there’s a proposal in the first place. The proposal would
have prevented this example merely by making the name clearer.
This is at best evidence that a name change is needed. It’s not evidence that
we should make large changes to the library and language.
> How will I know if the code behind a generic function taking a Sequence as
> argument will internally use `elementsEqual` so that I cannot use a Set as
> argument?
More generally, how would you know if someone wrote a function that takes an
unordered sequence and then writes an algorithm that relies on the order
anyway? Splitting the Sequence protocol can’t guarantee you won’t have those
kind of bugs. If the semantics of the function are not clear then that’s a
naming problem or a library design problem. That’s why the proposal is to fix
the name so that it’s clear what it actually does.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
