[swift-evolution] [SHORT Review] SE-0132: Rationalizing Sequence end-operation names
dabrahams at apple.com
Tue Jul 26 14:49:09 CDT 2016
on Mon Jul 25 2016, Matthew Johnson <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
> I was not totally happy with early drafts of this proposal. The final
> draft is a significant improvement. I am mostly +1, with a couple of
> minor critiques.
> I think this proposal pushes a bit too hard on consistency of “first /
> last” vs “prefix / suffix”. Specifically, I think first(n) and
> last(n) are significantly more clear than prefix(n) and suffix(n) (and
> removingFirst(n) / removingLast(n) instead of removingPrefix(n) /
> removingSuffix(n). I think the former are immediately clear. The
> latter, while consistent in terms of matching semantics with a naming
> convention suffer in terms of clarity at the call site. I do not
> think it is immediately clear that the parameter specifies the
> *length* of the prefix or suffix.
+1, and it doesn't: it specifies the *maximum length*.
> removingPrefix(ofLength: n) would solve the clarity issue at the
> expense of verbosity. I would prefer we just keep first / last in
> these cases.
> Another comment is that you have generally moved index based methods
> to subscripts rather than named methods. Why didn’t you take this all
> the way and change `replaceSubrange` to be a subscript setter?
The language doesn't allow it:
1. replaceSubrange is generic on the sequence argument and we don't have
2. you'd need to have a matching subscript getter, and there would be no
way to deduce the result in most cases, potentially causing
ambiguity. I dunno, maybe this could work, but we'd need to solve
problem 1 before we could find out.
>> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
> Yes, the new names have more consistency.
>> * 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?
> I don’t believed I have used any languages that emphasize consistent
> naming and API guidelines as strongly as Swift. This is a good
>> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
> A relatively quick read.
>> 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
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
More information about the swift-evolution