> What is your evaluation of the proposal?
+1. Yes please. Long overdue.
> Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to
> Swift?
It’s a long-standing sore thumb. The proposal’s evidence of community demand
fits my own experience: I’ve wanted this on multiple occasions.
> Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
Yes, and in particular, on the name bikeshedding:
I favor property names with the “all” prefix, whether allValues or allCases.
Looking over my own code, I’ve almost always used the word “all” for this when
I had to hand-roll it — and either allValues or allCases make reasonable sense
in my code when I substitute them.
Whichever protocol name we choose, the property name should be consistent:
ValueEnumerable → allValues
CaseEnumerable → allCases
Either ValueEnumerable or CaseEnumerable would be a fine name. Contra Chris, I
slightly prefer ValueEnumerable, because it extends to situations where we
still want to enumerate a fixed set of possibilities which don’t strictly
correspond to enum cases but still have that sort of flavor. For example, one
might want:
enum SideOfBody
{
case left
case right
}
enum Limb: ValueEnumerable
{
case arm(SideOfBody)
case leg(SideOfBody)
static let allValues =
[
arm(.left),
arm(.right),
leg(.left),
leg(.right)
]
}
To my eyes, this code reads better than it would with CaseEnumerable / allCases.
> If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do
> you feel that this proposal compares to those?
Java’s enums had this from the beginning, and Josh Bloch’s design for that
feature has always worked nicely. Java’s design is slightly different:
`Foo.values()` returns Foo[]. However, Swift doesn’t need to follow either that
name or type choice: (1) Java doesn’t use the term “case” as Swift does, (2)
the “all” prefix better fits Swift’s API guidelines IMO, and (3) using a
concrete array type has as opposed to Collection has different implications in
Java than it does Swift.
I _do_ agree that the proposal should consider constraining the Collection to
be Int-indexed. Why should it ever be otherwise? What’s the motivation for
leaving that open?
> How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or
> an in-depth study?
Medium quick study.
Cheers, P
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
