Would this require a swift-evolution review, since it's technically an API change? (removing the initializer requirement is something I am also interested in seeing...)
Austin On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-users < swift-users@swift.org> wrote: > > on Wed Jul 06 2016, Tim Vermeulen <swift-users-AT-swift.org> wrote: > > > RangeReplaceableCollection has three initialisers: init(), init(_:) > > and init(repeating:count:). The latter two are implemented using the > > empty initialiser. But why are these initialisers part of this > > particular protocol? As far as I can tell, no other methods of this > > protocol depend on these initialisers. The requirement of the empty > > initialiser makes it impossible to have a collection conform to this > > protocol that needs additional data for its initialisation. > > This is an excellent point, and I think it may have been an oversight > that we made this a requirement. Please open a bug and/or file a radar. > https://bugs.swift.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa > > Thanks! > > > For instance, I was making an array that works with any Strideable > > indices, not just integers. A startIndex is needed for its > > initialisation, so I can’t really conform it to > > RangeReplaceableCollection. If I do it anyways (with a fatalError() in > > the required empty initialiser) everything seems to work just fine, > > except for the protocol’s three initialisers. > > > > Perhaps these initialisers should be moved to a (possible new) > > different protocol? > > > -- > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > swift-users mailing list > swift-users@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users >
_______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
