<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 5, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Xiaodi Wu <<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" class="">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">I'm not sure about that. "Initialize backward from x, count y" is unambiguous as to how initialization starts and iterates (the first argument), and it is clear that `count` is an end condition dissociated from anything to do with how initialization starts and iterates.<br class=""><br class="">By contrast, "Initialize from x, backward from y" associates the direction of movement with y instead of x. Thus, y becomes the start condition (the end condition being implicitly "to zero"), thus raising the question of what position x is in relative to the count y.<br class=""></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>"Initialize backward from x" literally tells me that ‘x’ is the starting point, which is incorrect. Honestly, users will need to check the doc comments which are very precise.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Andy</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:10 Andrew Trick <<a href="mailto:atrick@apple.com" class="">atrick@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 5, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Xiaodi Wu <<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" class="">I don't mind `initialize(from:forwardToCount:)`, but I do have trouble with Brent's suggestion of `initialize(from:backwardFromCount:)`. It adds ambiguity as to whether the pointer in the first argument points to the 0th element or the (count - 1)th element from which initializing is proceeding backward, a problem that does not exist with the currently proposed version `initializeBackward(from:count:)`. I don't find the symmetry wins compelling enough to overcome that additional ambiguity.</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">That’s a good point, but I think both forms are equally ambiguous.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Andy</div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>