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

David Hart david at hartbit.com
Mon Jul 25 16:20:16 CDT 2016

> 	* What is your evaluation of the proposal?

+1 for most of the proposal
-1 for the slicing subscripts

This proposal is well researched, and well written and makes total sense. I totally agree that a renaming is required and I agree with most of the proposal for the exception of the slicing subscripts. If the goal of the proposal was to make those APIs easily discoverable, then those subscripts go completely against that:

You need to know that the subscripts exist and if you are looking for a method, you will never find them.
They use a new type which is never used anywhere else.

On a more general note, creating new types in the Standard Library only to serve as arguments for those fairly rarely used subscripts sounds very heavy-weight.

I vote for keeping functions for those operations.

> 	* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?


> 	* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

Yes, except for the subscripts, which look fairly alien to me.

> 	* If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?


> 	* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

Followed the original pitch, gave some feedback, re-read the proposal for the official review and spent a day pondering it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160725/b9e37c14/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list