[swift-evolution] [SHORT Review] SE-0132: Rationalizing Sequence end-operation names
nevin.brackettrozinsky at gmail.com
Tue Jul 26 10:30:43 CDT 2016
* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
First, I agree with the prevailing sentiment that the incomplete-range
portion ought to be separated and postponed.
Second, the proposed renaming of methods brings great consistency. However,
I believe that `first(n)` and `last(n)` read more clearly at the point of
use than `prefix(n)` and `suffix(n)`.
The best bikeshed labels I can devise for parameters on the latter are
`prefix(limit: n)` and `suffix(limit: n)`. That would narrow the gap in
readability, though not close it completely.
Moreover, `removingPrefix(limit: n)` and `removingSuffix(limit: n)` are
noticeably verboser (and still a bit less clear) than `removingFirst(n)`
* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
Changing `drop` to `removing` certainly fits the API naming guidelines.
* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
change to Swift?
I am not sure. Rather, the drop-becomes-removing part is significant
enough, because the problem being solved is “method names don’t match the
API guidelines”, but I am not sure about the rest of the proposal.
* If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar
feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
Regarding incomplete ranges, Matlab uses `end` as a placeholder for the end
index, so arr(6:end), and a middle number for step size, so arr(6:2:end).
I think that designing a range-with-stride system is worth considering in
the future, so we should not haphazardly introduce an incomplete-range
system which might unduly constrain the syntax.
* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
reading, or an in-depth study?
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:10 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:
> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews
> should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at
> 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?
> * 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?
> * 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?
> More information about the Swift evolution process is available at
> Thank you,
> -Chris Lattner
> Review Manager
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution