[swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Re-Review] SE-0104: Protocol-oriented integers

[Howard Lovatt]

You raised two points:

  1. "... magnitude is something the number ‘has’ whereas signum is a
completely new thing ..." I think sign is as much part of a number as
magnitude. Its a minor point, code complete gets it anyway.

  2. "... [extras] are defined as protocol extensions, therefore they
should be discoverable through completion ..." I wasn't thinking so much
about code completion, more browsing the protocol to see what is available
(I use SwiftDoc quite a bit).

Thanks for running with this - very valuable,

  -- Howard.

On 22 February 2017 at 10:27, Max Moiseev <moiseev at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 3:05 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> The re-review of SE-0104 "Protocol-oriented integers" begins now and runs
> through February 25, 2017. This proposal was accepted for Swift 3, but was
> not implemented in time for the release. The revised proposal is available
> here:
>
>>
>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/
>> proposals/0104-improved-integers.md
>>
>>
>> • What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>>
>
> Well worth while. Few nit picks:
>
>   1. Number.init? Description should say BinaryInteger not floating-point.
>
> I’ll update the proposal.
>
>   2. Number should document that mutating versions of operators can
> overflow.
>   3. SignedNumber should document that negate and unary `-` can overflow.
>
> Documentation changes noted. Thanks!
>
>   4. SignedNumber, it is weird that `signum` is a function when other
> similar things, e.g. `magnitude`, are properties.
>
> I think of it as: magnitude is something the number ‘has’ whereas signum
> is a completely new thing of the same type.
>
>   5. Not worth representing `DoubleWidth` as an enumeration, it is obscure
> and therefore will only confuse people.
>   6. It would be better to put the 'extra' operations into the protocols
> and provide default implementations, otherwise they are difficult to find.
>
> They are defined as protocol extensions, therefore they should be
> discoverable through completion and in the generated source code. Or what
> do you mean by ‘difficult to find’?
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
>
>> • Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change
>> to Swift?
>>
>
> Yes, the current design has not served my purpose on more than one
> occasion
>
>>
>> • Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>>
>
> Yes
>
>>
>> • If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature,
>> how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
>>
>
> Yes, this proposal is similar to what other languages provide, e.g. Scala.
> In Scala however they tackle the `conversion problem as well in their
> `traits heirarchy. I guess this could be added at a later date.
>
>>
>> • How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
>> reading, or an in-depth study?
>>
>
> Read the proposal, have used similar features in other languages, and have
> had trouble with Swift's current heirarchy.
> --
> -- Howard.
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170222/2cd96bee/attachment.html>