[swift-evolution] Fixing the confusion between non-mutating algorithms and single-pass sequences

[Dave Abrahams]

on Wed Jul 20 2016, Jonathan Hull <jhull-AT-gbis.com> wrote:

>> >>> Basically, I added back in a super-minimal protocol to fill the
>> >>> structural gap left by Sequence.  I call it “IteratorProvider” and it
>> >>> only has a single function which vends an iterator.  Collection
>> >>> adheres to this, and Iterator adheres to it by returning itself.  All
>> >>> of the other methods from Sequence remain on Iterator.  Thus anyone
>
>> >>> with API that only needs a single pass would take a IteratorProvider
>> >>> and then work on the iterator it provides.
>> >> 
>> >> That leaves us back where we are now: people will see that
>> >> IteratorProvider is a simple, universal protocol for both single-and
>> >> multi-pass sequences, write algorithm libraries that depend on
>> >> multi-pass-ness, and test them with the most prevalent examples, which
>> >> happen to be multi pass.
>> >
>> > Let me make a quick counter-argument, because I thought about it a
>> > bit, and I don’t think it does have the same problem (especially with
>> > careful/better naming).
>> >
>> > The difference is that the ONLY method on IteratorProvider is the one
>> > to get an iterator.  There is no map, filter, sort, first, count, etc…
>> > just a way to get a single-pass iterator.  This changes the mindset
>> > when using it.  You are aware that you are getting a single-pass
>> > iterator.
>> 
>> Maybe.  What's to stop people from extending IteratorProvider?
>
> Nothing.  But that is true of any protocol.  I am ok with individual's
> extensions.  They would have to use that single method to build up
> from anyway, so presumably they would have to consider the single pass
> case in their extensions...
>
>> > True, people might try to get the iterator a second time, but we can
>> > make the iteratorProvider method optional (and trying to get an
>> > iterator from an iterator which is spent would return nil) 
>> > and then they are forced to deal with the case where it was
>> > single-pass.
>> 
>> Now you can't loop over the same array multiple times.
> I must be missing something.  Isn’t that the point?

No.  Arrays are multipass.

> I mean, your version is called “IterableOnce”.  Why do you want to
> iterate on IterableOnce more than once?  

Because it happens to be multipass.

> The point (at least in my mind) is to provide a common interface for
> things that we want to iterate over a single time.  If you want to
> iterate multiple times, use collection’s interface where you are
> guaranteed multi-pass.

for ... in uses Iterators.

> That said, you actually can loop multiple times for collections by
> getting a new iterator from the provider (which could point to the
> same array storage).  The optional just forces you to check for the
> single-pass case.

Oh, I'm sorry; I didn't realize you were saying that only single-pass
IteratorProviders would ever return nil from their methods.

> I have a feeling like I am missing your true meaning here though...

Probably a communication failure on my end.

-- 
-Dave