[swift-evolution] [SHORT Review] SE-0132: Rationalizing Sequence end-operation names

[Dave Abrahams]

on Sun Jul 24 2016, Xiaodi Wu <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello Swift community,
>>
>> The review of "SE-0132: Rationalizing Sequence end-operation names" begins
>> now and runs through July 26.  Apologies for the short review cycle, but
>> we’re right up against the end of source breaking changes for Swift 3.  The
>> proposal is available here:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0132-sequence-end-ops.md
>>
>> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews
>> should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at
>>
>>         https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the
>> review manager.
>>
>> What goes into a review?
>>
>> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review
>> through constructive criticism and contribute to the direction of Swift.
>> When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer
>> in your review:
>>
>>         * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>>
>
> The end product is really quite beautiful. This proposal very much succeeds
> at rationalizing all names without introducing terminology that's
> unprecedented. I very much appreciate that properties or functions named
> `first` now always return one or zero elements and that ranges are always
> indicated with range operators. The only quibble is that `hasPrefix(_:by:)`
> might be more appropriately `hasPrefix(_:comparingBy:)`, as the standalone
> preposition doesn't quite make sense IMO.

It makes as much sense as in `elementsEqual(_:by:)` et. al, IMO.


>>         * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
>> change to Swift?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>>         * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>>
>
> Yes, very much so.
>
>>         * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar
>> feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
>>
>
> This proposal rationalizes Swift-specific names, so not sure how to compare
> to other languages.
>
>>         * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
>> reading, or an in-depth study?
>>
>
> A quick reading of this version; I followed the original discussion and
> thought about it more in-depth then.
>
>> More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
>>
>>         https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> -Chris Lattner
>> Review Manager
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

-- 
Dave