[swift-evolution] Add a while clause to for loops

Wed Jun 8 14:01:20 CDT 2016

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Tim Vermeulen <tvermeulen at me.com> wrote:

> That’s why I said “potentially less elegant”, some people might prefer
> `where` over `guard`. This proposal would give them the choice (in very
> specific situations) to use `where` rather than `guard` if they don’t want
> to sacrifice performance.
>

Since Swift strives to be an opinionated language without dialects, there
shouldn't be more "choice" but rather one general solution, IMO. Since
`guard` doesn't sacrifice performance and is the most general, I would
oppose adding the option of `while` to offer more choice.

>
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Tim Vermeulen via swift-evolution<
> swift-evolution at swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)>wrote:
> > > This is a really strong argument in my opinion. If we don’t add a
> `while` to for loops, then in some situations we will have to rewrite a
> `where` clause to something potentially less elegant, given that we don’t
> want to give up performance.
> > I disagree. I argue that what you call "less elegant", namely if (or
> guard) inside the loop, is the most elegant solution.
> >
> > >
> > > >IMO `.prefix` is just not the equal alternative for as proposed
> `while` :
> > > >in case of 'while' expression `number<4_000_000` will be calculated
> > > >*only* for those who `number % 2 == 0`. In case of `prefix` - the
> > > >expression will be processed for each `number` and only after this
> filtered
> > > >by `number % 2`. Let's assume we need to check for some
> > > >veryExpensiveTest(number):
> > > >
> > > >for number in fibonacci where number % 2 == 0 while
> > > >veryExpensiveTest(number) {}
> > > >
> > > >let numbers = fibonacci.prefix { veryExpensiveTest($0) }
> > > >for number in numbers where number % 2 == 0 {}
> > > >
> > > >So, `while` for `for` loops just can't be always replaced with
> `prefix`
> > > >
> > > >On 08.06.2016 2:02, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution wrote:
> > > >>On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Tim Vermeulen<tvermeulen at me.com
> (mailto:tvermeulen at me.com)
> > > >><mailto:tvermeulen at me.com>>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>I’ve been thinking about this for a bit now, and I think it would
> make
> > > >>most sense to evaluate these clauses from left to right. However,
> cases
> > > >>where the order matters are very uncommon, and I would rather have
> the
> > > >>power to choose which clause is evaluated first than to have a forced
> > > >>default order. Either way I don’t see this as a reason not to allow
> > > >>combining the two clauses because IMO it can lead to some very clean
> > > >>code. For instance, say we want to loop through all even fibonacci
> > > >>numbers below 4 million (see problem #2 from project euler), we could
> > > >>do this:
> > > >>
> > > >>`for number in fibonacci where number % 2 == 0 while number<4_000_000
> > > >>{ }`
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>This statement looks like spaghetti to me. I would not at all support
> > > >>extending the language to permit it. Do you really think it's more
> readable
> > > >>than going step-by-step?
> > > >>
> > > >>```
> > > >>let numbers = fibonacci.prefix { $0<4_000_000 }
> > > >>for number in numbers where number % 2 == 0 {
> > > >>// ...
> > > >>}
> > > >>```
> > > >>
> > > >>or just:
> > > >>
> > > >>```
> > > >>let numbers = fibonacci.prefix { $0<4_000_000 }
> > > >>let evens = numbers.filter { $0 % 2 == 0 }
> > > >>for number in evens {
> > > >>// ...
> > > >>}
> > > >>```
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>I could have ordered the two clauses in any way I want. If combining
> > > >>the clauses weren’t allowed, I’d have to put (at least) one of them
> > > >>inside the block, which would be a (minor) pain.
> > > >>
> > > >>I don’t currently have a very strong opinion about the order of
> > > >>evaluation, so I might be convinced otherwise. But combining the two
> > > >>clauses is so powerful that I don’t think it’s worth to get rid of
> just
> > > >>because of an edge case.
> > > >>
> > > >>>It may be workable if you can have only one or the other, but
> mixing and matching them as proposed above would be a world of hurt:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>```
> > > >>>for foo in bar where condition1 while condition2 { ... }
> > > >>>```
> > > >>>
> > > >>>If condition1 and condition2 both evaluate to true, then whether
> you continue or break would depend on the relative order of where and
> while; for generality, you would want to allow both
> `for...in...where...while` and `for...in...while...where`, and likely
> `for...in...while...where...while`, etc. There is nothing in the meaning of
> those words that would suggest that `while...where` behaves differently
> from `where...while`, etc. This is why words like "break" and "continue"
> are IMO far superior.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Erica Sadun<erica at ericasadun.com
> (mailto:erica at ericasadun.com)
> > > >><mailto:erica at ericasadun.com>(mailto:erica at ericasadun.com
> > > >><mailto:erica at ericasadun.com>)>wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Tim Vermeulen via swift-evolution<
> swift-evolution at swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)
> > > >><mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>(mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org
> > > >><mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>)>wrote:
> > > >>>>>>The meaning of the proposed while is not at all a pair for
> where, since where clauses in while loops would do the same thing as while
> clauses in for loops. That's crazy.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>It sounds crazy, but it’s the nature of the while loop. A where
> clause in a while loop also has a different result than a where clause in a
> for loop.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>The where_clause appears in the for in statement
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>for_in_statement : 'for' 'case'? pattern 'in' expression
> where_clause? code_block
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>It's syntactic sugar because the expression can be already be
> limited through functional chaining of some sort or another. At the same
> time, it's nice and pleasant to have `where` and I'm not itching to throw
> it out. The same courtesy could be easily extend to `when` (because I don't
> really want to use the `while` keyword here, but I could easily be
> convinced otherwise because I don't have a strong stance either way):
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>for_in_statement : 'for' 'case'? pattern 'in' expression
> (where_clause | when_clause)? code_block
> > > >>>>when_clause : 'when' expression
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>and again it could be nice and pleasant to have, although not
> necessary. The question comes down to how much does the language benefit by
> this sugar.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>I'd say that in both cases, combining chaining and statements is
> > > >>marginallyless goodthan either using standalone chaining or
> statements
> > > >>without chaining. But as I say this, I know as a fact, I fully intend
> > > >>to use `sequence(_:, next:).take(while:)` with for0in statements, so
> > > >>I'm starting from a hypocritical vantage point.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>To summarize, I'm more +0.01 than I am -0.01 on this.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>-- E
> > > >>>>p.s. Sorry, wux
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > >>swift-evolution mailing list
> > > >>swift-evolution at swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)
> > > >>https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > swift-evolution mailing list
> > > swift-evolution at swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)
> > > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> >
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160608/fa204676/attachment.html>