<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Xiaodi Wu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" target="_blank">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Tim Vermeulen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tvermeulen@me.com" target="_blank">tvermeulen@me.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">That’s why I said “potentially less elegant”, some people might prefer `where` over `guard`. This proposal would give them the choice (in very specific situations) to use `where` rather than `guard` if they don’t want to sacrifice performance.<br></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Since Swift strives to be an opinionated language without dialects, there shouldn't be more "choice" but rather one general solution, IMO. Since `guard` doesn't sacrifice performance and is the most general, I would oppose adding the option of `while` to offer more choice.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I should add, on the topic of removing `where`, there would be a higher threshold for a successful proposal and I would have to convince people that the `where` clause is actually harmful. I do wonder if I could succeed in that endeavor. But when it comes to adding something like `while`, you've yet to convince me it offers more than just stylistic choice. IMO, that is insufficient for a proposal as consequential as adding syntax to the language itself (a much more serious addition than changing API in the stdlib, for example).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span><br>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Tim Vermeulen via swift-evolution<<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>(mailto:<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>)>wrote:<br>
> > This is a really strong argument in my opinion. If we don’t add a `while` to for loops, then in some situations we will have to rewrite a `where` clause to something potentially less elegant, given that we don’t want to give up performance.<br>
> I disagree. I argue that what you call "less elegant", namely if (or guard) inside the loop, is the most elegant solution.<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > >IMO `.prefix` is just not the equal alternative for as proposed `while` :<br>
> > >in case of 'while' expression `number<4_000_000` will be calculated<br>
> > >*only* for those who `number % 2 == 0`. In case of `prefix` - the<br>
> > >expression will be processed for each `number` and only after this filtered<br>
> > >by `number % 2`. Let's assume we need to check for some<br>
> > >veryExpensiveTest(number):<br>
> > ><br>
> > >for number in fibonacci where number % 2 == 0 while<br>
> > >veryExpensiveTest(number) {}<br>
> > ><br>
> > >let numbers = fibonacci.prefix { veryExpensiveTest($0) }<br>
> > >for number in numbers where number % 2 == 0 {}<br>
> > ><br>
> > >So, `while` for `for` loops just can't be always replaced with `prefix`<br>
> > ><br>
> > >On 08.06.2016 2:02, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution wrote:<br>
</span>> > >>On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Tim Vermeulen<<a href="mailto:tvermeulen@me.com" target="_blank">tvermeulen@me.com</a>(mailto:<a href="mailto:tvermeulen@me.com" target="_blank">tvermeulen@me.com</a>)<br>
<div><div>> > >><mailto:<a href="mailto:tvermeulen@me.com" target="_blank">tvermeulen@me.com</a>>>wrote:<br>
> > >><br>
> > >>I’ve been thinking about this for a bit now, and I think it would make<br>
> > >>most sense to evaluate these clauses from left to right. However, cases<br>
> > >>where the order matters are very uncommon, and I would rather have the<br>
> > >>power to choose which clause is evaluated first than to have a forced<br>
> > >>default order. Either way I don’t see this as a reason not to allow<br>
> > >>combining the two clauses because IMO it can lead to some very clean<br>
> > >>code. For instance, say we want to loop through all even fibonacci<br>
> > >>numbers below 4 million (see problem #2 from project euler), we could<br>
> > >>do this:<br>
> > >><br>
> > >>`for number in fibonacci where number % 2 == 0 while number<4_000_000<br>
> > >>{ }`<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >>This statement looks like spaghetti to me. I would not at all support<br>
> > >>extending the language to permit it. Do you really think it's more readable<br>
> > >>than going step-by-step?<br>
> > >><br>
> > >>```<br>
> > >>let numbers = fibonacci.prefix { $0<4_000_000 }<br>
> > >>for number in numbers where number % 2 == 0 {<br>
> > >>// ...<br>
> > >>}<br>
> > >>```<br>
> > >><br>
> > >>or just:<br>
> > >><br>
> > >>```<br>
> > >>let numbers = fibonacci.prefix { $0<4_000_000 }<br>
> > >>let evens = numbers.filter { $0 % 2 == 0 }<br>
> > >>for number in evens {<br>
> > >>// ...<br>
> > >>}<br>
> > >>```<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >>I could have ordered the two clauses in any way I want. If combining<br>
> > >>the clauses weren’t allowed, I’d have to put (at least) one of them<br>
> > >>inside the block, which would be a (minor) pain.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >>I don’t currently have a very strong opinion about the order of<br>
> > >>evaluation, so I might be convinced otherwise. But combining the two<br>
> > >>clauses is so powerful that I don’t think it’s worth to get rid of just<br>
> > >>because of an edge case.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >>>It may be workable if you can have only one or the other, but mixing and matching them as proposed above would be a world of hurt:<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>>```<br>
> > >>>for foo in bar where condition1 while condition2 { ... }<br>
> > >>>```<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>>If condition1 and condition2 both evaluate to true, then whether you continue or break would depend on the relative order of where and while; for generality, you would want to allow both `for...in...where...while` and `for...in...while...where`, and likely `for...in...while...where...while`, etc. There is nothing in the meaning of those words that would suggest that `while...where` behaves differently from `where...while`, etc. This is why words like "break" and "continue" are IMO far superior.<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
</div></div>> > >>>On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Erica Sadun<<a href="mailto:erica@ericasadun.com" target="_blank">erica@ericasadun.com</a>(mailto:<a href="mailto:erica@ericasadun.com" target="_blank">erica@ericasadun.com</a>)<br>
<span>> > >><mailto:<a href="mailto:erica@ericasadun.com" target="_blank">erica@ericasadun.com</a>>(mailto:<a href="mailto:erica@ericasadun.com" target="_blank">erica@ericasadun.com</a><br>
> > >><mailto:<a href="mailto:erica@ericasadun.com" target="_blank">erica@ericasadun.com</a>>)>wrote:<br>
> > >>>><br>
</span>> > >>>>>On Jun 7, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Tim Vermeulen via swift-evolution<<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>(mailto:<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>)<br>
<span>> > >><mailto:<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>>(mailto:<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
> > >><mailto:<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>>)>wrote:<br>
> > >>>>>>The meaning of the proposed while is not at all a pair for where, since where clauses in while loops would do the same thing as while clauses in for loops. That's crazy.<br>
> > >>>>><br>
> > >>>>>It sounds crazy, but it’s the nature of the while loop. A where clause in a while loop also has a different result than a where clause in a for loop.<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>>The where_clause appears in the for in statement<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>>for_in_statement : 'for' 'case'? pattern 'in' expression where_clause? code_block<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>>It's syntactic sugar because the expression can be already be limited through functional chaining of some sort or another. At the same time, it's nice and pleasant to have `where` and I'm not itching to throw it out. The same courtesy could be easily extend to `when` (because I don't really want to use the `while` keyword here, but I could easily be convinced otherwise because I don't have a strong stance either way):<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>>for_in_statement : 'for' 'case'? pattern 'in' expression (where_clause | when_clause)? code_block<br>
> > >>>>when_clause : 'when' expression<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>>and again it could be nice and pleasant to have, although not necessary. The question comes down to how much does the language benefit by this sugar.<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>>I'd say that in both cases, combining chaining and statements is<br>
> > >>marginallyless goodthan either using standalone chaining or statements<br>
> > >>without chaining. But as I say this, I know as a fact, I fully intend<br>
> > >>to use `sequence(_:, next:).take(while:)` with for0in statements, so<br>
> > >>I'm starting from a hypocritical vantage point.<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>>To summarize, I'm more +0.01 than I am -0.01 on this.<br>
> > >>>><br>
> > >>>>-- E<br>
> > >>>>p.s. Sorry, wux<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >>_______________________________________________<br>
> > >>swift-evolution mailing list<br>
</span>> > >><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>(mailto:<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>)<br>
<span>> > >><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > swift-evolution mailing list<br>
</span>> > <a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>(mailto:<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>)<br>
> > <a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> </blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>