<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br></div><div><br>On 26 Jul 2016, at 06:50, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> surface area and leverages the user's understanding of how ranges<br>
work.<br>
<br>
It also implies we can replace<br>
<br>
x.removingPrefix(n)<br>
x.removingSuffix(n)<br>
<br>
with<br>
<br>
x[$+n..<]<br>
x[..<$-n]<br>
<br>
for Collections.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not enamored of this suggestion. It succeeds in reducing API surface area, but at a severe cost to readability. You'd replace an unambiguous phrase (removing prefix or suffix), the meaning of which is further clarified by the consistent usage proposed in SE-0132, with a wordless spelling using some combination of [$+.<]. Cognitively, also, it substantially increases the burden for the reader: it replaces a single argument with a nested series of arguments; first, one must understand the meaning of the $ placeholder, then one must consider an addition or subtraction operation, then the formation of a range, and in the last example, the use of that range as a subscript argument--again, all wordlessly. Finally, subscripts have so far not been "forgiving," while today's `dropLast` very much is; this suggestion would add inconsistency by using a subscript for a forgiving or "lenient" operation.</div></div></blockquote><br><div>I second Xiaodi. I am against the slicing subscripts and the ones above look even more unreadable and inscrutable than those in the proposal. I don't understand the rational.</div></body></html>