[swift-evolution] [Proposal] Safer half-open range operator
svabox at gmail.com
Mon Apr 11 10:21:33 CDT 2016
+1 for the idea "in general". But I also think that explicit is better than
implicit, especially if we deal with possible errors. Just like we work in
Swift with integer overflow : '+' will generate run time error, but saying
&+ we point Swift that we know what we do.
but.. what we'll have in case a[-1 &..< 5]? should this raise error or
become [0 ..< 3] ? I think, the latter.
On 11.04.2016 17:02, Haravikk via swift-evolution wrote:
> I like the idea in theory, but the question is; is it really safer to
> return a result that the developer may not have wanted, versus an error
> indicating that a mistake may have been made? I wonder if perhaps there
> could be an alternative, such as a variation of the operator like so:
> let b = a [0 &..< 5]// Equivalent to let b = a[0 ..< min(5, a.endIndex)],
> becomes let b = a[0 ..< 3]
> I’m just not sure that we can assume that an array index out of range error
> is okay without some kind of indication from the developer, as otherwise we
> could end up returning a partial slice, which could end up causing an error
> elsewhere where the size of the slice is assumed to be 5 but isn’t.
>> On 11 Apr 2016, at 13:23, Luis Henrique B. Sousa via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> This proposal seeks to provide a safer ..< (aka half-open range operator)
>> in order to avoid **Array index out of range** errors in execution time.
>> Here is my first draft for this proposal:
>> In short, doing that in Swift causes a runtime error:
>> leta =[1,2,3]
>> letb =a[0..<5]
>> > Error running code:
>> > fatal error: Array index out of range
>> The proposed solution is to slice the array returning all elements that
>> are below the half-open operator, even though the number of elements is
>> lesser than the ending of the half-open operator. So the example above
>> would return [1,2,3].
>> We can see this very behaviour in other languages, such as Python and
>> Ruby as shown in the proposal draft.
>> This would eliminate the need for verifications on the array size before
>> slicing it -- and consequently runtime errors in cases when the
>> programmer didn't.
>> Viewing that it is my very first proposal, any feedback will be helpful.
>> Luis Henrique Borges
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
More information about the swift-evolution