[swift-evolution] [Proposal] More lenient subscript methods over Collections
Luis Henrique B. Sousa
lshsousa at gmail.com
Tue Jul 19 05:30:33 CDT 2016
As regards some comments in the pull request
<https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/328> (thanks @Adriano
Ferreira), I have updated the implementation
<https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/proposal-lenient-collection-subscripts/proposals/nnnn-more-lenient-collections-subscripts.md#detailed-design>
to
Swift 3.0. It now uses `clamped(to:)` as suggested by @Nate -- I think it
does look much more elegant. :-)
You can see the current code, run and test it from here:
https://swiftlang.ng.bluemix.net/#/repl/578ccabaf0ebe4d91be1e605
Considering that there were some other threads and drafts around this very
subject, more feedback and discussion are required on this idea. Even with
the new Range.clamped(to:) method, I still think that this addition could
be handy and useful. I do know that it is a very simple extension and that
it doesn't do much behind the scenes, but I would like to have it available
and ready to use when convenient.
Furthermore, it's not all about the "syntax sugar" aspect, it's something
to discuss when the fail-fast perspective doesn't apply directly, when the
operation doesn't necessarily causes a bug if it fails, when we'd rather
have the subscript method executing "safely" (controversial term, but you
got my point) than the application crashing in runtime.
There are many cases where I have to add extra code with operations and
validations in order to get subarrays or an element in a specific position.
For example, given an application with some sort of "top 5", currently I
must be careful and check the array size beforehand. I would rather avoid
that and take advantage of a more intuitive and clear solution e.g.
`records[clamping:
0..<5]`, instead of validating that the array is not empty and then
returning something like `records.count > 5 ? records[0..<5] :
records[0..records.count]`.
tl;dr;
After all, I'm just seeking a behaviour that could be compared to what we
have for dictionaries when trying to get the value for a non-existing key:
let dict = ["a": 1, "b": 2]
*> dict["c"] // nil*
let array = [1,2,3]
*> array[5] // fatal error: index out of range*
*> array[0..<5] // fatal error: index out of range*
with this proposal:
*> array[checking: 5] // nil*
*> array[checking: 0..<5] // nil (Optional)*
*> array[clamping: 0..<5] // [1,2,3] (clamped to bounds)*
Regards,
Luis
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Nate Cook <nate at natecook.com> wrote:
>
> On May 17, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Luis Henrique B. Sousa via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> Many thanks, @Maximilian. I'm also not sure about the performance cost,
> but I think it is worth it.
> So I just updated the proposal also including the additional min/max you
> have suggested (thanks once again):
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/328
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Luis
>
>
> The new Range types have a clamped(to:) method that should do what you
> need.
>
> http://swiftdoc.org/v3.0/type/Range/#func-clamped-to_
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Maximilian Hünenberger <
> m.huenenberger at me.com> wrote:
>
>> While it is true that it uses min and max, you have to add *additional
>> min max* in order to achieve the desired behavior.
>>
>> So the implementation should be: (also considering (hopefully all) recent
>> naming/index model updates)
>>
>> // Index is already Comparable
>> extension Collection {
>>
>> subscript(clamping range: Range<Index>) -> SubSequence {
>> // ---> here you have to use the additional min/max
>> let start = min(max(startIndex, range.startIndex), endIndex)
>> let end = max(min(endIndex, range.endIndex), startIndex)
>> return self[start ..< end]
>>
>> // ---> or as alternative, probably a bit less performant but
>> Swiftier
>> return self[range.clamping(startIndex..<endIndex)]
>> }
>>
>> subscript(checking range: Range<Index>) -> SubSequence? {
>> guard range.startIndex >= startIndex && range.endIndex <= endIndex
>> else { return nil }
>> return self[range]
>> }
>>
>> subscript(checking index: Index) -> Generator.Element? {
>> // ---> minor syntax update *
>> guard self.indices.contains(index)
>> else { return nil }
>> return self[index]
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> * I'm not sure it is worth the performance cost for arbitrary indices
>> collection with O(n) search. I could imagine Set and Dictionary indices
>> cannot be easily validated in comparison to Array indices. However this
>> approach is more general and handles non trivial index collections where
>> there is no guarantee that any index between startIndex and endIndex is a
>> valid one.
>> The same arguments also apply to `subscript(checking range ...)` where
>> you could validate start and endIndex of the range.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Maximilian
>>
>> Am 16.05.2016 um 09:45 schrieb Luis Henrique B. Sousa <lshsousa at gmail.com
>> >:
>>
>> Yes. The suggested implementation does use min/max:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/more-lenient-subscripts/proposals/nnnn-more-lenient-collections-subscripts.md#detailed-design
>>
>> - Luis
>>
>> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Maximilian Hünenberger <
>> m.huenenberger at me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I brought these up because the current implementation produces an error
>>> in these cases. You have to insert additional min/max operations.
>>>
>>> Am 15.05.2016 um 16:38 schrieb Luis Henrique B. Sousa <
>>> lshsousa at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Exactly, the idea is to return an empty array just like other languages
>>> do. (e.g. python)
>>>
>>> - Luis
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution <
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15.05.2016 0:09, Maximilian Hünenberger via swift-evolution wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One point which should be discussed is the following behaviour:
>>>>>
>>>>> let array = [0]
>>>>> // ranges are completely out of bounds and produce an error
>>>>> array[clamping: 1...2] // error
>>>>> array[clamping: -2...-1] // error
>>>>>
>>>>> Should a range which has no intersection with the indices of the
>>>>> collection
>>>>> produce an error or just clamp to 0..<0 respectively
>>>>> endIndex..<endIndex?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I expect it will returns [] i.e. empty array, as no elements with
>>>> 1...2(-2..-1) indexes in the array. I understand `clamping` similar as
>>>> 'bounded','in these bounds'. And as soon as [0,1,2,3,4][clamping:2...10]
>>>> will silently move the right position to allowed index(4), and
>>>> [0,1,2,3,4][clamping:-2...0] will move left position to 0, I expect that
>>>> in [0][clamping: 1...2] will try to move both limits to allowed, and as no
>>>> intersection - silently return empty array.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Maximilian
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 13.05.2016 um 17:10 schrieb Luis Henrique B. Sousa via
>>>>> swift-evolution
>>>>> <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>>:
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that there is a consensus that this proposal might be a good
>>>>>> addition to the standard library. All comments on this thread in the
>>>>>> past
>>>>>> few weeks were related to naming, not around the behaviour or
>>>>>> validity of
>>>>>> the proposed methods. So I will submit this proposal for review very
>>>>>> soon
>>>>>> assuming that nobody else has strong arguments against it. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proposal:
>>>>>> https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/more-lenient-subscripts/proposals/nnnn-more-lenient-collections-subscripts.md
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have any corrections or suggestions to the proposal text
>>>>>> itself,
>>>>>> please comment on this gist:
>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/luish/832c34ee913159f130d97a914810dbd8
>>>>>> (or pull request to my repo)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Luis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Luis Henrique B. Sousa
>>>>>> <lshsousa at gmail.com <mailto:lshsousa at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know if you have more suggestions or corrections on
>>>>>> this proposal.
>>>>>> I'm tempted to submit it for review. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Luis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Luis Henrique B. Sousa
>>>>>> <lshsousa at gmail.com <mailto:lshsousa at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sounds good, thanks for you suggestions @Vladimir, @Patrick
>>>>>> and @Brent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've just updated the proposal:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/more-lenient-subscripts/proposals/nnnn-more-lenient-collections-subscripts.md#detailed-design
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Luis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Vladimir.S via
>>>>>> swift-evolution
>>>>>> <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I feel like 'within' is much better than 'bounded'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about such changes in proposal:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a[bounded: -1 ..< 5] --> a[within: -1 ..< 5] (or
>>>>>> a[inside:
>>>>>> -1 ..< 5] )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a[optional: 0 ..< 5] --> a[checking: 0 ..< 5]
>>>>>> a[optional: 5] --> a[checking: 5]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10.05.2016 6:27, Patrick Smith via swift-evolution
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like the idea of the of the bounded subscript,
>>>>>> however
>>>>>> the optional one I
>>>>>> feel could be used for clumsy code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .first and .last have value, but once you start
>>>>>> stepping
>>>>>> several arbitrary
>>>>>> indices in, then that code is likely fragile?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can think of ‘within’, ‘inside’ and ‘intersecting’
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> alternative names
>>>>>> for ‘bounded’ that attempt to explain what is going
>>>>>> on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> let a = [1, 2, 3]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a[within: 0 ..< 5] // [1, 2, 3]
>>>>>> a[inside: 0 ..< 5] // [1, 2, 3]
>>>>>> a[intersecting: 0 ..< 5] // [1, 2, 3]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 Apr 2016, at 10:11 PM, Luis Henrique B.
>>>>>> Sousa
>>>>>> 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>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As we have discussed throughout this thread, the
>>>>>> initial proposal was
>>>>>> modified to include alternative subscript methods
>>>>>> instead of modifying
>>>>>> the default operator/subscript behaviour.
>>>>>> The first draft is
>>>>>> here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/more-lenient-subscripts/proposals/nnnn-more-lenient-collections-subscripts.md
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've also put this as a gist so that you can leave
>>>>>> comments with respect
>>>>>> to the proposal document itself. Any suggestion or
>>>>>> help is very welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/luish/832c34ee913159f130d97a914810dbd8
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Luis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Luis Henrique B.
>>>>>> Sousa
>>>>>> <lshsousa at gmail.com <mailto:lshsousa at gmail.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:lshsousa at gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mailto:lshsousa at gmail.com>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/half-open-range-operator/proposals/nnnn-safer-half-open-range-operator.md
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In short, doing that in Swift causes a
>>>>>> runtime error:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> leta =[1,2,3]
>>>>>> letb =a[0..<5]
>>>>>> print(b)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Luis Henrique Borges
>>>>>> @luishborges
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>>>>> <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> 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/20160719/e09f7b76/attachment.html>
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list