Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution]

> Am 23.01.2017 um 18:26 schrieb Gwendal Roué :
> 
>> Where generic subscripts are concerned, there are a couple of different 
>> things to express:
>> - Generic parameter  (I can understand various co-ordinates for the data)
>> - Generic return type (I can construct your preferred representation of 
>> the data)
>> - Generic setter type (I can set the data using various compatible 
>> types):
> 
> I think all of these should be expressed with a single generic signature 
> on the subscript itself. The element type passed to the setter and 
> returned from the getter should be the same IMO, otherwise it’s not clear 
> how it will work.
 
 Yes.  It's quite important that any particular subscript reference is 
 still a single consistent entity, even if generic; we would not want, say, 
 a read-modify-write access to be able to somehow invoke the getter and 
 setter at different generic arguments, or to traffic in different element 
 types.
 
 I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from 
 context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being generic 
 over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic value.
>>> 
>>> This is a consequence of your vision of subscript. If interesting, it is 
>>> also limiting for no real purpose.
>>> 
>>> As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better 
>>> API than the following:
>>> 
>>> // Current state of affairs
>>> let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
>>> let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
>>> let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")
>>> 
>>> Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:
>>> 
>>> // With improved subscripts
>>> let name: String = row["name"]
>>> let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
>>> let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]
>>> 
>>> And this requires genericity on return type.
>> 
>> This is not typesafe at all if the type does not depend on the argument. I'd 
>> prefer keys carrying the meta information of their respective database 
>> column keeping the whole API typesafe.
> 
> As long as your personal preference has no impact on return-type genericity 
> subscripts adoption, I'm fine with it :-)

No problem with that :-)

-Thorsten
> 
> Gwendal
> 
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Robert Widmann via swift-evolution]

This can be made typesafe if the ObjectIdentifier of the archetype is stored 
with the key and checked on retrieval.

~Robert Widmann

2017/01/23 11:43、Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution  
のメッセージ:

> 
> 
>> Am 14.01.2017 um 14:50 schrieb Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution 
>> :
>> 
> Where generic subscripts are concerned, there are a couple of different 
> things to express:
> - Generic parameter  (I can understand various co-ordinates for the data)
> - Generic return type (I can construct your preferred representation of 
> the data)
> - Generic setter type (I can set the data using various compatible types):
 
 I think all of these should be expressed with a single generic signature 
 on the subscript itself. The element type passed to the setter and 
 returned from the getter should be the same IMO, otherwise it’s not clear 
 how it will work.
>>> 
>>> Yes.  It's quite important that any particular subscript reference is still 
>>> a single consistent entity, even if generic; we would not want, say, a 
>>> read-modify-write access to be able to somehow invoke the getter and setter 
>>> at different generic arguments, or to traffic in different element types.
>>> 
>>> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from 
>>> context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being generic 
>>> over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic value.
>> 
>> This is a consequence of your vision of subscript. If interesting, it is 
>> also limiting for no real purpose.
>> 
>> As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better API 
>> than the following:
>> 
>> // Current state of affairs
>> let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
>> let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
>> let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")
>> 
>> Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:
>> 
>> // With improved subscripts
>> let name: String = row["name"]
>> let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
>> let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]
>> 
>> And this requires genericity on return type.
> 
> This is not typesafe at all if the type does not depend on the argument. I'd 
> prefer keys carrying the meta information of their respective database column 
> keeping the whole API typesafe.
> 
> -Thorsten
>  
>> 
>> Gwendal
>> 
>> ___
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution]

> Where generic subscripts are concerned, there are a couple of different 
> things to express:
> - Generic parameter  (I can understand various co-ordinates for the data)
> - Generic return type (I can construct your preferred representation of 
> the data)
> - Generic setter type (I can set the data using various compatible types):
 
 I think all of these should be expressed with a single generic signature 
 on the subscript itself. The element type passed to the setter and 
 returned from the getter should be the same IMO, otherwise it’s not clear 
 how it will work.
>>> 
>>> Yes.  It's quite important that any particular subscript reference is still 
>>> a single consistent entity, even if generic; we would not want, say, a 
>>> read-modify-write access to be able to somehow invoke the getter and setter 
>>> at different generic arguments, or to traffic in different element types.
>>> 
>>> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from 
>>> context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being generic 
>>> over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic value.
>> 
>> This is a consequence of your vision of subscript. If interesting, it is 
>> also limiting for no real purpose.
>> 
>> As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better API 
>> than the following:
>> 
>> // Current state of affairs
>> let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
>> let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
>> let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")
>> 
>> Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:
>> 
>> // With improved subscripts
>> let name: String = row["name"]
>> let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
>> let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]
>> 
>> And this requires genericity on return type.
> 
> This is not typesafe at all if the type does not depend on the argument. I'd 
> prefer keys carrying the meta information of their respective database column 
> keeping the whole API typesafe.

As long as your personal preference has no impact on return-type genericity 
subscripts adoption, I'm fine with it :-)

Gwendal

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution]

> Am 14.01.2017 um 14:50 schrieb Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution 
> :
> 
 Where generic subscripts are concerned, there are a couple of different 
 things to express:
 - Generic parameter  (I can understand various co-ordinates for the data)
 - Generic return type (I can construct your preferred representation of 
 the data)
 - Generic setter type (I can set the data using various compatible types):
>>> 
>>> I think all of these should be expressed with a single generic signature on 
>>> the subscript itself. The element type passed to the setter and returned 
>>> from the getter should be the same IMO, otherwise it’s not clear how it 
>>> will work.
>> 
>> Yes.  It's quite important that any particular subscript reference is still 
>> a single consistent entity, even if generic; we would not want, say, a 
>> read-modify-write access to be able to somehow invoke the getter and setter 
>> at different generic arguments, or to traffic in different element types.
>> 
>> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from 
>> context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being generic 
>> over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic value.
> 
> This is a consequence of your vision of subscript. If interesting, it is also 
> limiting for no real purpose.
> 
> As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better API 
> than the following:
> 
> // Current state of affairs
> let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
> let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> 
> Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:
> 
> // With improved subscripts
> let name: String = row["name"]
> let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
> let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]
> 
> And this requires genericity on return type.

This is not typesafe at all if the type does not depend on the argument. I'd 
prefer keys carrying the meta information of their respective database column 
keeping the whole API typesafe.

-Thorsten
 
> 
> Gwendal
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[John McCall via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 15, 2017, at 8:32 PM, Dave Abrahams  wrote:
> 
> 
> on Sun Jan 15 2017, John McCall  wrote:
> 
>>> On Jan 15, 2017, at 7:22 PM, Dave Abrahams  wrote:
>>> on Sun Jan 15 2017, John McCall  wrote:
>>> 
> On Jan 14, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution 
> 
>> wrote:
> on Fri Jan 13 2017, John McCall  wrote:
>> 
> 
>> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from
>> context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being
>> generic over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic
>> value.
> 
> Actually I *would* want to be able to do that, though I admit it's the
> 1% case (or less).
 
 Would you actually want the value type to be inferred, or you would
 just want it to be allowed to vary according to the index type?
 Because the former sounds like a huge usability issue.
>>> 
>>> Both.  Usability-wise, it's no worse than f() -> T, which has its
>>> (rare) uses today and doesn't cause a problem when it's not used.
>> 
>> Well, I'm assuming you would like to be able to do things like call
>> mutating methods on these things.  
> 
> Yes.  That's already *possible* even without a default:
> 
>func mutate(_ x: inout T, applying body: (inout T)->R) -> R {
>  return body(&x)
>}
> 
>mutate(&thingWithGenericSubscript[3]) { 
>  (a: inout X)->() in a.mutatingMethod() // deduce X
>}
> 
> Obviously this is awful.  The default mentioned below helps eliminate
> the awfulness.

Right.  I described it as a usability problem, not an expressiveness barrier. :)

> But not all subscripts are, or need to be, get/set, and even without the
> default, the feature would be useful with get-only subscripts.

True.  And like I've said, it's possible that this isn't a big problem.

John.

> 
>> Maybe not in the use case you're thinking of, though?
>> 
>>> Ideally I'd like to be able to guide deduction to pick a sensible
>>> default for T when there's insufficient type context, but that's a
>>> separable feature.
>> 
>> Yes, defaulting would fix the usability problem.
>> 
>> John.
> 
> -- 
> -Dave

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution]

on Sun Jan 15 2017, John McCall  wrote:

>> On Jan 15, 2017, at 7:22 PM, Dave Abrahams  wrote:
>> on Sun Jan 15 2017, John McCall  wrote:
>> 
 On Jan 14, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution 
 
> wrote:
 on Fri Jan 13 2017, John McCall  wrote:
>
 
> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from
> context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being
> generic over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic
> value.
 
 Actually I *would* want to be able to do that, though I admit it's the
 1% case (or less).
>>> 
>>> Would you actually want the value type to be inferred, or you would
>>> just want it to be allowed to vary according to the index type?
>>> Because the former sounds like a huge usability issue.
>> 
>> Both.  Usability-wise, it's no worse than f() -> T, which has its
>> (rare) uses today and doesn't cause a problem when it's not used.
>
> Well, I'm assuming you would like to be able to do things like call
> mutating methods on these things.  

Yes.  That's already *possible* even without a default:

func mutate(_ x: inout T, applying body: (inout T)->R) -> R {
  return body(&x)
}

mutate(&thingWithGenericSubscript[3]) { 
  (a: inout X)->() in a.mutatingMethod() // deduce X
}

Obviously this is awful.  The default mentioned below helps eliminate
the awfulness.

But not all subscripts are, or need to be, get/set, and even without the
default, the feature would be useful with get-only subscripts.

> Maybe not in the use case you're thinking of, though?
>
>> Ideally I'd like to be able to guide deduction to pick a sensible
>> default for T when there's insufficient type context, but that's a
>> separable feature.
>
> Yes, defaulting would fix the usability problem.
>
> John.

-- 
-Dave
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[John McCall via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 15, 2017, at 7:22 PM, Dave Abrahams  wrote:
> on Sun Jan 15 2017, John McCall  wrote:
> 
>>> On Jan 14, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution 
>>>  wrote:
>>> on Fri Jan 13 2017, John McCall  wrote:
>>> 
 I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from
 context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being
 generic over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic
 value.
>>> 
>>> Actually I *would* want to be able to do that, though I admit it's the
>>> 1% case (or less).
>> 
>> Would you actually want the value type to be inferred, or you would
>> just want it to be allowed to vary according to the index type?
>> Because the former sounds like a huge usability issue.
> 
> Both.  Usability-wise, it's no worse than f() -> T, which has its
> (rare) uses today and doesn't cause a problem when it's not used.

Well, I'm assuming you would like to be able to do things like call mutating 
methods on these things.  Maybe not in the use case you're thinking of, though?

> Ideally I'd like to be able to guide deduction to pick a sensible
> default for T when there's insufficient type context, but that's a
> separable feature.

Yes, defaulting would fix the usability problem.

John.

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution]

on Sun Jan 15 2017, Jacob Bandes-Storch  wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> on Fri Jan 13 2017, John McCall  wrote:
>>
>> > I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from
>> > context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being
>> > generic over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic
>> > value.
>>
>> Actually I *would* want to be able to do that, though I admit it's the
>> 1% case (or less).
>>
>
> 1%? Wouldn't many JSON libraries, for instance, be eager to take advantage
> of this?

Y'all brought up plenty of examples I hadn't thought of, so 1% might be
too low.

-- 
-Dave
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution]

on Sun Jan 15 2017, John McCall  wrote:

>> On Jan 14, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution 
>>  wrote:
>> on Fri Jan 13 2017, John McCall  wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from
>>> context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being
>>> generic over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic
>>> value.
>> 
>> Actually I *would* want to be able to do that, though I admit it's the
>> 1% case (or less).
>
> Would you actually want the value type to be inferred, or you would
> just want it to be allowed to vary according to the index type?
> Because the former sounds like a huge usability issue.

Both.  Usability-wise, it's no worse than f() -> T, which has its
(rare) uses today and doesn't cause a problem when it's not used.
Ideally I'd like to be able to guide deduction to pick a sensible
default for T when there's insufficient type context, but that's a
separable feature.

-- 
-Dave
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[John McCall via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon  
> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 9:50 AM, John McCall via swift-evolution 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from 
>> context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being generic 
>> over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic value.
> 
> I think I have a pretty good use case for generic element types: you may want 
> an index to carry the type of its element. For example, suppose you want to 
> have a sort of dictionary whose keys are unique instances of a key class, and 
> whose value type depends on the key instance:

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that the value type shouldn't be allowed to 
depend on the subscript's type parameters at all, just that it should probably 
be determinable from the index type.  I'm not sure that I have a specific 
technical concern, though, as long as it's a given that any particular access 
assigns a single type to the value; but I'll need to think about it.

John.
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[John McCall via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 14, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> on Fri Jan 13 2017, John McCall  wrote:
> 
>> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from
>> context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being
>> generic over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic
>> value.
> 
> Actually I *would* want to be able to do that, though I admit it's the
> 1% case (or less).

Would you actually want the value type to be inferred, or you would just want 
it to be allowed to vary according to the index type?  Because the former 
sounds like a huge usability issue.

John.
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

>
> on Fri Jan 13 2017, John McCall  wrote:
>
> > I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from
> > context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being
> > generic over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic
> > value.
>
> Actually I *would* want to be able to do that, though I admit it's the
> 1% case (or less).
>

1%? Wouldn't many JSON libraries, for instance, be eager to take advantage
of this?
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution]

I agree with Dave. To me, building in a limit so that the return type can't
be inferred seems arbitrary.

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

>
> on Fri Jan 13 2017, John McCall  wrote:
>
> > I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from
> > context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being
> > generic over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic
> > value.
>
> Actually I *would* want to be able to do that, though I admit it's the
> 1% case (or less).
>
> --
> -Dave
>
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>



-- 
Chris Eidhof
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution]

on Fri Jan 13 2017, John McCall  wrote:

> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from
> context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being
> generic over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic
> value.

Actually I *would* want to be able to do that, though I admit it's the
1% case (or less).

-- 
-Dave

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution]

> Le 14 janv. 2017 à 18:45, Anton Zhilin  a écrit :
> 
> I’m not sure, but I think that in this case the specific type of these values 
> is determined at runtime.
> Then a safe approach would be separate string: String?, bool: Bool?, int: 
> Int? computed properties, as it’s done in JSON parsers.
> 
> if let bookCount = row.value(named: "bookCount").int {
> ...
> }
> if let bookCount = row["bookCount"].int {
> ...
> }
> let bookCount = row.int ("bookCount")!   // crash if 
> database is corrupt
> Additionally, this is an overall bad example of generics. Fields of database 
> tables can only map to a limited set of static types in Swift, which are 
> supported by database adapter
> 
Thanks for the compliment! I disagree, of course.

App developers may need to fetch basic database data types, obviously, but also 
RawRepresentable types based on those types, dates, date components, uuids, 
serialized JSON, and generally speaking a large and extensible set of 
serializable types.

This is, I believe, a very good usage of return type genericity, as well as an 
excellent opportunity for the open/closed principle 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open/closed_principle 
).

Gwendal

> 2017-01-14 16:50 GMT+03:00 Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>:
> 
> As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better API 
> than the following:
> 
> // Current state of affairs
> let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
> let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> 
> Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:
> 
> // With improved subscripts
> let name: String = row["name"]
> let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
> let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]
> 
> And this requires genericity on return type.
> 
> Gwendal
> 
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org 
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution 
> 
> 
> 
> 

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution]

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 14, 2017, at 12:17 PM, Shawn Erickson via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> I have a throwing style data marshaling layer that uses throwing and return 
> type inference to make the code clean and validation automatic with the 
> optional ability to return default values if error or missing value, etc. 
> This is for validating data coming from external sources into our app. Having 
> generic return type and throwing subscripts would help make this code better 
> for clients IMHO.
> 
> class Data {
> let number: Int
> let name: String
> }
> 
> 
> data.number = try helper.value(forKey: "baz")
> data.name = try helper.value(forKey: "foo", otherwise: "bar")
> 
> 
>  or ideally something like 
> 
> 
> data.number = try helper["baz"]
> data.name = try helper["foo", otherwise: "bar"]
> 
> 

This is exactly the kind of library I was mentioning.  There is a lot of demand 
for the ability to write these kinds of libraries for various different 
purposes.

> -Shawn
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:45 AM Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> I’m not sure, but I think that in this case the specific type of these values 
> is determined at runtime.
> Then a safe approach would be separate string: String?, bool: Bool?, int: 
> Int? computed properties, as it’s done in JSON parsers.
> 
> 
> 
> if let bookCount = row.value(named: "bookCount").int {
> 
> ...
> 
> }
> 
> if let bookCount = row["bookCount"].int {
> 
> ...
> 
> }
> 
> let bookCount = row.int("bookCount")!   // crash if database is corrupt
> 
> Additionally, this is an overall bad example of generics. Fields of database 
> tables can only map to a limited set of static types in Swift, which are 
> supported by database adapter.
> 
> 
> 
> 2017-01-14 16:50 GMT+03:00 Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> This is a consequence of your vision of subscript. If interesting, it is also 
> limiting for no real purpose.
> 
> As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better API 
> than the following:
> 
> // Current state of affairs
> let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
> let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> 
> Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:
> 
> // With improved subscripts
> let name: String = row["name"]
> let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
> let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]
> 
> And this requires genericity on return type.
> 
> Gwendal
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> swift-evolution mailing list
> 
> 
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> 
> 
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> swift-evolution mailing list
> 
> 
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> 
> 
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Rien via swift-evolution]

> On 14 Jan 2017, at 18:45, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> I’m not sure, but I think that in this case the specific type of these values 
> is determined at runtime.
> Then a safe approach would be separate string: String?, bool: Bool?, int: 
> Int? computed properties, as it’s done in JSON parsers.

Yup. This is what I do:

var json = VJson()
var name: String?

json[“books”][1][“title”] &= “THHGTTG” 

and the reverse

name &= json[“books”][1][“title"]

The overloaded operator ‘&=‘ takes care of the types. (‘=‘ cannot be overloaded)



> 
> if let bookCount = row.value(named: "bookCount").int {
> ...
> }
> if let bookCount = row["bookCount"].int {
> ...
> }
> let bookCount = 
> row.int
> ("bookCount")!   // crash if database is corrupt
> 
> Additionally, this is an overall bad example of generics. Fields of database 
> tables can only map to a limited set of static types in Swift, which are 
> supported by database adapter.
> 
> 2017-01-14 16:50 GMT+03:00 Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> This is a consequence of your vision of subscript. If interesting, it is also 
> limiting for no real purpose.
> 
> As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better API 
> than the following:
> 
> // Current state of affairs
> let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
> let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> 
> Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:
> 
> // With improved subscripts
> let name: String = row["name"]
> let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
> let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]
> 
> And this requires genericity on return type.
> 
> Gwendal
> 
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Regards,
Rien

Site: http://balancingrock.nl
Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com
Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien
Project: http://swiftfire.nl




___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Shawn Erickson via swift-evolution]

I have a throwing style data marshaling layer that uses throwing and return
type inference to make the code clean and validation automatic with the
optional ability to return default values if error or missing value, etc.
This is for validating data coming from external sources into our app.
Having generic return type and throwing subscripts would help make this
code better for clients IMHO.

class Data {
let number: Int
let name: String
}


data.number = try helper.value(forKey: "baz")
data.name = try helper.value(forKey: "foo", otherwise: "bar")


 or ideally something like 


data.number = try helper["baz"]
data.name = try helper["foo", otherwise: "bar"]


-Shawn


On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:45 AM Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

I’m not sure, but I think that in this case the specific type of these
values is determined at runtime.
Then a safe approach would be separate string: String?, bool: Bool?, int:
Int? computed properties, as it’s done in JSON parsers.


if let bookCount = row.value(named: "bookCount").int {

...

}

if let bookCount = row["bookCount"].int {

...

}

let bookCount = row.int("bookCount")!   // crash if database is corrupt

Additionally, this is an overall bad example of generics. Fields of
database tables can only map to a limited set of static types in Swift,
which are supported by database adapter.


2017-01-14 16:50 GMT+03:00 Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org>:


This is a consequence of your vision of subscript. If interesting, it is
also limiting for no real purpose.

As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better
API than the following:

// Current state of affairs
let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")

Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:

// With improved subscripts
let name: String = row["name"]
let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]

And this requires genericity on return type.

Gwendal


___


swift-evolution mailing list


swift-evolution@swift.org


https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution





​


___


swift-evolution mailing list


swift-evolution@swift.org


https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution]

I’m not sure, but I think that in this case the specific type of these
values is determined at runtime.
Then a safe approach would be separate string: String?, bool: Bool?, int:
Int? computed properties, as it’s done in JSON parsers.

if let bookCount = row.value(named: "bookCount").int {
...
}
if let bookCount = row["bookCount"].int {
...
}
let bookCount = row.int("bookCount")!   // crash if database is corrupt

Additionally, this is an overall bad example of generics. Fields of
database tables can only map to a limited set of static types in Swift,
which are supported by database adapter.

2017-01-14 16:50 GMT+03:00 Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org>:

This is a consequence of your vision of subscript. If interesting, it is
> also limiting for no real purpose.
>
> As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better
> API than the following:
>
> // Current state of affairs
> let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
> let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")
>
> Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:
>
> // With improved subscripts
> let name: String = row["name"]
> let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
> let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]
>
> And this requires genericity on return type.
>
> Gwendal
>
>
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> ​
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Shawn Erickson via swift-evolution]

I have very similar needs as well to allow for things to be generic on
return type.

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:50 AM Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

> Where generic subscripts are concerned, there are a couple of different
> things to express:
> - Generic parameter  (I can understand various co-ordinates for the data)
> - Generic return type (I can construct your preferred representation of
> the data)
> - Generic setter type (I can set the data using various compatible types):
>
>
> I think all of these should be expressed with a single generic signature
> on the subscript itself. The element type passed to the setter and returned
> from the getter should be the same IMO, otherwise it’s not clear how it
> will work.
>
>
> Yes.  It's quite important that any particular subscript reference is
> still a single consistent entity, even if generic; we would not want, say,
> a read-modify-write access to be able to somehow invoke the getter and
> setter at different generic arguments, or to traffic in different element
> types.
>
> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from
> context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being generic
> over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic value.
>
>
> This is a consequence of your vision of subscript. If interesting, it is
> also limiting for no real purpose.
>
> As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better
> API than the following:
>
> // Current state of affairs
> let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
> let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")
>
> Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:
>
> // With improved subscripts
> let name: String = row["name"]
> let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
> let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]
>
> And this requires genericity on return type.
>
> Gwendal
>
> ___
>
> swift-evolution mailing list
>
> swift-evolution@swift.org
>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution]

Sent from my iPhone

> On 14 Jan 2017, at 13:50, Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
 Where generic subscripts are concerned, there are a couple of different 
 things to express:
 - Generic parameter  (I can understand various co-ordinates for the data)
 - Generic return type (I can construct your preferred representation of 
 the data)
 - Generic setter type (I can set the data using various compatible types):
>>> 
>>> I think all of these should be expressed with a single generic signature on 
>>> the subscript itself. The element type passed to the setter and returned 
>>> from the getter should be the same IMO, otherwise it’s not clear how it 
>>> will work.
>> 
>> Yes.  It's quite important that any particular subscript reference is still 
>> a single consistent entity, even if generic; we would not want, say, a 
>> read-modify-write access to be able to somehow invoke the getter and setter 
>> at different generic arguments, or to traffic in different element types.
>> 
>> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from 
>> context like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being generic 
>> over *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic value.
> 
> This is a consequence of your vision of subscript. If interesting, it is also 
> limiting for no real purpose.
> 
> As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better API 
> than the following:
> 
> // Current state of affairs
> let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
> let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")
> 
> Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:
> 
> // With improved subscripts
> let name: String = row["name"]
> let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
> let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]
> 
> And this requires genericity on return type.

Massive +1 to that

> 
> Gwendal
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution]

>>> Where generic subscripts are concerned, there are a couple of different 
>>> things to express:
>>> - Generic parameter  (I can understand various co-ordinates for the data)
>>> - Generic return type (I can construct your preferred representation of the 
>>> data)
>>> - Generic setter type (I can set the data using various compatible types):
>> 
>> I think all of these should be expressed with a single generic signature on 
>> the subscript itself. The element type passed to the setter and returned 
>> from the getter should be the same IMO, otherwise it’s not clear how it will 
>> work.
> 
> Yes.  It's quite important that any particular subscript reference is still a 
> single consistent entity, even if generic; we would not want, say, a 
> read-modify-write access to be able to somehow invoke the getter and setter 
> at different generic arguments, or to traffic in different element types.
> 
> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from context 
> like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being generic over 
> *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic value.

This is a consequence of your vision of subscript. If interesting, it is also 
limiting for no real purpose.

As the developer of a Swift database library, I'd like to offer a better API 
than the following:

// Current state of affairs
let name: String = row.value(named: "name")
let bookCount: Int = row.value(named: "bookCount")
let hasBooks: Bool = row.value(named: "bookCount")

Instead, I wish I could offer GRDB.swift would let its users write:

// With improved subscripts
let name: String = row["name"]
let bookCount: Int = row["bookCount"]
let hasBooks: Bool = row["bookCount"]

And this requires genericity on return type.

Gwendal

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 9:50 AM, John McCall via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from context 
> like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being generic over 
> *indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic value.

I think I have a pretty good use case for generic element types: you may want 
an index to carry the type of its element. For example, suppose you want to 
have a sort of dictionary whose keys are unique instances of a key class, and 
whose value type depends on the key instance:

struct TypedDictionary {
final class Key: Hashable {
init(of type: T.Type) {}

var hashValue: Int { return 
ObjectIdentifier(self).hashValue }
static func == (lhs: Key, rhs: Key) { return lhs === 
rhs }
}

private var storage: [AnyHashable: Any] = [:]

subscript(key: Key) -> T? {
get {
return storage[key] as! T?
}
set {
storage[key] = newValue as Any?
}
}
}

let messageKey = TypedDictionary.Key(of: String.self)
let answerKey = TypedDictionary.Key(of: Int.self)

var myDict = TypedDictionary()
myDict[messageKey] = "Hello, world!"
myDict[answerKey] = 42

I've wanted to do things like this in at least three or four different 
contexts; you could even imagine reflection being implemented this way, with 
typed `PropertyKey`s and a subscript available on all instances. You can work 
around it with methods, but it always feels unnatural, with vacuous method 
names like `value(for:)`.

I do agree that it is probably useless and certainly a little dangerous to have 
a generic parameter that's completely inferred from the return value, but you 
could make the same argument for methods, and yet we allow them there.

-- 
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[John McCall via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 11:23 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:05 PM, Karl Wagner > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 12 Jan 2017, at 22:37, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
 
 On Jan 12, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 
 Ok, I've got a draft up as a gist: 
 https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/6c681677d44903045587bf75fb17eb25 
 
 
 Before I submit it, could someone let me know if adding generics to 
 subscripts would influence the ABI? ( still feel pretty clueless in that 
 area).
>>> 
>>> It won’t change the ABI of existing subscript calls, but if the standard 
>>> library introduces new generic subscripts that replace older non-generic 
>>> subscripts, it will impact ABI.
>>> 
>>> Slava
>> 
>> Why are subscripts so different, anyway? One would think they are basically 
>> sugared functions, but they don’t support so many things that regular 
>> functions support. Not just syntax stuff, either - they also don’t support 
>> @inline(__always) for some reason…
> 
> Nice catch with @inline(__always). Please file a JIRA issue, since I’m 
> actively working on this stuff now.
> 
> Subscripts are a bit different from ordinary functions because they’re 
> lvalues. You can call mutating members on the result of a subscript, or chain 
> it with another property access or subscript. So the code path in SILGen is a 
> little different than ordinary function calls.

I would put it a little differently.  Subscripts are used to refer to a logical 
component of a value, the same way that a property is.  Subscripts are 
obviously different from properties because they're parameterized by some sort 
of index, but otherwise they're very similar in the core sense that the 
expression by itself just abstractly refers to a component of another value, 
and it's *how that expression is used* that really determines its semantics.  
That is, "a[i]" would always be a very odd thing to have as a statement on its 
own, just like "pi" would be a very odd thing to have as a statement on its own 
— generally you're reading from it or writing to it, and which one exactly 
you're doing can result in very different code being executed.  It's that 
contextual sensitivity that makes subscripts quite different from just "sugared 
functions".

> This is the reason subscripts cannot have default arguments also. With a bit 
> of refactoring we can unify the code path for forming call arguments in 
> ordinary calls and subscripts, and hopefully the default argument and generic 
> cases will fall out naturally also.

Right.  There isn't any particular reason that subscripts don't support default 
arguments; it's just a little extra work that we've never done.

>> Where generic subscripts are concerned, there are a couple of different 
>> things to express:
>> - Generic parameter  (I can understand various co-ordinates for the data)
>> - Generic return type (I can construct your preferred representation of the 
>> data)
>> - Generic setter type (I can set the data using various compatible types):
> 
> I think all of these should be expressed with a single generic signature on 
> the subscript itself. The element type passed to the setter and returned from 
> the getter should be the same IMO, otherwise it’s not clear how it will work.

Yes.  It's quite important that any particular subscript reference is still a 
single consistent entity, even if generic; we would not want, say, a 
read-modify-write access to be able to somehow invoke the getter and setter at 
different generic arguments, or to traffic in different element types.

I'm also not sure we'd ever want the element type to be inferred from context 
like this.  Generic subscripts as I see it are about being generic over 
*indexes*, not somehow about presenting a polymorphic value.

John.

> 
>> 
>> protocol MeaningfulToFoo {}
>> protocol ConstructableFromFoo {}
>> 
>> struct Foo {
>> subscript(index: Index) where Index: SignedInteger {
>> get where T: ConstructableFromFoo { return T(self) }
>> set where T: MeaningfulToFoo  { self.someProperty = 
>> newValue.someData }
>> }
>> }
>> 
>> The syntax looks a bit awkward, though, IMO. I’m wondering if it might be 
>> better to have some kind of combined subscript + property behaviours 
>> (remember those?) and allow those to be generic instead. Subscripts and 
>> properties are very similar anyway - they are both bundles of functions to 
>> represent getting and setting data (not just regular-old “get” and “set”, 
>> either, but also magic stuff like “mutableAddressWithPinnedNativeOwner”). 
>> The only difference is that property getters can’t have parameters — which 
>> is something I would also like to see lifted one day (I believe I’ve

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Ben Cohen via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
>> Before I submit it, could someone let me know if adding generics to 
>> subscripts would influence the ABI? ( still feel pretty clueless in that 
>> area).
> 
> It won’t change the ABI of existing subscript calls, but if the standard 
> library introduces new generic subscripts that replace older non-generic 
> subscripts, it will impact ABI.
> 

Specifically, we currently have to have a _Hashable protocol that has a 
_toAnyHashable() method in order to implement Dictionary 
subscripting using concrete types as keys. A replacement subscript that was 
generic over all Hashable types would solve this more neatly, and would be 
source-compatible, but affects the ABI of the stdlib. 

https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/stdlib/public/core/Hashable.swift#L16

Generic subscripts would also make it easier to implement one-sided ranges e.g. 

myCollection[i...] // slice from i to the end


___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Slava Pestov via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:05 PM, Karl Wagner  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 12 Jan 2017, at 22:37, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ok, I've got a draft up as a gist: 
>>> https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/6c681677d44903045587bf75fb17eb25 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Before I submit it, could someone let me know if adding generics to 
>>> subscripts would influence the ABI? ( still feel pretty clueless in that 
>>> area).
>> 
>> It won’t change the ABI of existing subscript calls, but if the standard 
>> library introduces new generic subscripts that replace older non-generic 
>> subscripts, it will impact ABI.
>> 
>> Slava
> 
> Why are subscripts so different, anyway? One would think they are basically 
> sugared functions, but they don’t support so many things that regular 
> functions support. Not just syntax stuff, either - they also don’t support 
> @inline(__always) for some reason…

Nice catch with @inline(__always). Please file a JIRA issue, since I’m actively 
working on this stuff now.

Subscripts are a bit different from ordinary functions because they’re lvalues. 
You can call mutating members on the result of a subscript, or chain it with 
another property access or subscript. So the code path in SILGen is a little 
different than ordinary function calls. This is the reason subscripts cannot 
have default arguments also. With a bit of refactoring we can unify the code 
path for forming call arguments in ordinary calls and subscripts, and hopefully 
the default argument and generic cases will fall out naturally also.

> 
> Where generic subscripts are concerned, there are a couple of different 
> things to express:
> - Generic parameter  (I can understand various co-ordinates for the data)
> - Generic return type (I can construct your preferred representation of the 
> data)
> - Generic setter type (I can set the data using various compatible types):

I think all of these should be expressed with a single generic signature on the 
subscript itself. The element type passed to the setter and returned from the 
getter should be the same IMO, otherwise it’s not clear how it will work.

> 
> protocol MeaningfulToFoo {}
> protocol ConstructableFromFoo {}
> 
> struct Foo {
> subscript(index: Index) where Index: SignedInteger {
> get where T: ConstructableFromFoo { return T(self) }
> set where T: MeaningfulToFoo  { self.someProperty = 
> newValue.someData }
> }
> }
> 
> The syntax looks a bit awkward, though, IMO. I’m wondering if it might be 
> better to have some kind of combined subscript + property behaviours 
> (remember those?) and allow those to be generic instead. Subscripts and 
> properties are very similar anyway - they are both bundles of functions to 
> represent getting and setting data (not just regular-old “get” and “set”, 
> either, but also magic stuff like “mutableAddressWithPinnedNativeOwner”). The 
> only difference is that property getters can’t have parameters — which is 
> something I would also like to see lifted one day (I believe I’ve even seen 
> people asking for “named subscripts” due to the lack of this =P)
> 
> - Karl
> 

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Karl Wagner via swift-evolution]

> On 12 Jan 2017, at 22:37, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Ok, I've got a draft up as a gist: 
>> https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/6c681677d44903045587bf75fb17eb25 
>> 
>> 
>> Before I submit it, could someone let me know if adding generics to 
>> subscripts would influence the ABI? ( still feel pretty clueless in that 
>> area).
> 
> It won’t change the ABI of existing subscript calls, but if the standard 
> library introduces new generic subscripts that replace older non-generic 
> subscripts, it will impact ABI.
> 
> Slava

Why are subscripts so different, anyway? One would think they are basically 
sugared functions, but they don’t support so many things that regular functions 
support. Not just syntax stuff, either - they also don’t support 
@inline(__always) for some reason…

Where generic subscripts are concerned, there are a couple of different things 
to express:
- Generic parameter  (I can understand various co-ordinates for the data)
- Generic return type (I can construct your preferred representation of the 
data)
- Generic setter type (I can set the data using various compatible types):

protocol MeaningfulToFoo {}
protocol ConstructableFromFoo {}

struct Foo {
subscript(index: Index) where Index: SignedInteger {
get where T: ConstructableFromFoo { return T(self) }
set where T: MeaningfulToFoo  { self.someProperty = 
newValue.someData }
}
}

The syntax looks a bit awkward, though, IMO. I’m wondering if it might be 
better to have some kind of combined subscript + property behaviours (remember 
those?) and allow those to be generic instead. Subscripts and properties are 
very similar anyway - they are both bundles of functions to represent getting 
and setting data (not just regular-old “get” and “set”, either, but also magic 
stuff like “mutableAddressWithPinnedNativeOwner”). The only difference is that 
property getters can’t have parameters — which is something I would also like 
to see lifted one day (I believe I’ve even seen people asking for “named 
subscripts” due to the lack of this =P)

- Karl

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Chris Eidhof  wrote:
> 
> Ok, I've got a draft up as a gist: 
> https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/6c681677d44903045587bf75fb17eb25 
> 
Please remember to fill in the title (rather than “Feature name”). Otherwise… 
there’s not much to say. It’s a straightforward addition. Thanks for working on 
it! 

> 
> Before I submit it, could someone let me know if adding generics to 
> subscripts would influence the ABI? ( still feel pretty clueless in that 
> area).

What Slava said!

- Doug

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:05 PM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> 
>> Okay,
>> 
>> I agree that throwing subscripts would be great to have. Likewise, 
>> generic(and maybe even throwing) properties could be useful. However, I 
>> think that for this proposal, it makes more sense to focus on just generic 
>> subscripts, and mention throwing subscripts as "future improvements"? 
> 
> There's already a draft proposal covering throwing subscripts. You can 
> mention it's existence, but I don't see a reason to say much. 
> 
>  - Doug
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:52 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 
 On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
>> 
>> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
>> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
>> proposal, just a JIRA: 
>> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
>>  
>> 
>>  
> 
> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the 
> language, so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to 
> link to the JIRA ticket.
> 
> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s 
> something that the standard library could make good use of.
 
 +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
 
 -Chris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I 
>>> figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my 
>>> question:
>>> 
>>> Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a 
>>> [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one that 
>>> returns an unwrapped value or throws.
>> 
>> Throwing accessors are mostly straightforward, but there is a big conceptual 
>> question: what happens if an accessor is called during error propagation?  
>> For example:
>> 
>>   objectWithThrowingSubscriptSetter[index].mutatingMethodThatCanThrow()
>> 
>> If the method throws, we currently still call the setter in order to finish 
>> the access.  If the setter can throw, then, we might end up with multiple 
>> errors being thrown at the same time, which isn't good — the language is put 
>> in the awkward position of having to invent an arbitrary resolution 
>> mechanism.
>> 
>> You might ask: why do we call the setter if an error is thrown?  Well, it's 
>> complicated.  One reason is that the implementation technique we use for 
>> generic access to subscripts and properties — accesses where we don't know 
>> how the subscript/property is implemented — doesn't know how to distinguish 
>> between *finishing* an access normally and *aborting* an access abnormally.  
>> Some kinds of property/subscript implementation — ones currently reserved 
>> for the standard library, but likely to be eventually offered to users in 
>> some form — depend on doing extra work no matter how the access is 
>> terminated, e.g. to release a buffer pointer.  (In fact, in general this 
>> applies even to get/set implementations, because even if we decided not to 
>> call the setter when an error was thrown, we would at least need to destroy 
>> the index argument that we were going to pass to the setter.)  In order to 
>> get consistent behavior between generic and non-generic accesses, we've just 
>> generally been finishing the access all the time.
>> 
>> I think it would be possible to teach this generic mechanism the difference 
>> between finishing and aborting an access, and thus to avoid calling 

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Slava Pestov via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> Ok, I've got a draft up as a gist: 
> https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/6c681677d44903045587bf75fb17eb25 
> 
> 
> Before I submit it, could someone let me know if adding generics to 
> subscripts would influence the ABI? ( still feel pretty clueless in that 
> area).

It won’t change the ABI of existing subscript calls, but if the standard 
library introduces new generic subscripts that replace older non-generic 
subscripts, it will impact ABI.

Slava

> 
> Thanks!
> 
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:05 PM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> 
>> Okay,
>> 
>> I agree that throwing subscripts would be great to have. Likewise, 
>> generic(and maybe even throwing) properties could be useful. However, I 
>> think that for this proposal, it makes more sense to focus on just generic 
>> subscripts, and mention throwing subscripts as "future improvements"? 
> 
> There's already a draft proposal covering throwing subscripts. You can 
> mention it's existence, but I don't see a reason to say much. 
> 
>  - Doug
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:52 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 
 On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
>> 
>> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
>> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
>> proposal, just a JIRA: 
>> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
>>  
>> 
>>  
> 
> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the 
> language, so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to 
> link to the JIRA ticket.
> 
> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s 
> something that the standard library could make good use of.
 
 +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
 
 -Chris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I 
>>> figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my 
>>> question:
>>> 
>>> Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a 
>>> [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one that 
>>> returns an unwrapped value or throws.
>> 
>> Throwing accessors are mostly straightforward, but there is a big conceptual 
>> question: what happens if an accessor is called during error propagation?  
>> For example:
>> 
>>   objectWithThrowingSubscriptSetter[index].mutatingMethodThatCanThrow()
>> 
>> If the method throws, we currently still call the setter in order to finish 
>> the access.  If the setter can throw, then, we might end up with multiple 
>> errors being thrown at the same time, which isn't good — the language is put 
>> in the awkward position of having to invent an arbitrary resolution 
>> mechanism.
>> 
>> You might ask: why do we call the setter if an error is thrown?  Well, it's 
>> complicated.  One reason is that the implementation technique we use for 
>> generic access to subscripts and properties — accesses where we don't know 
>> how the subscript/property is implemented — doesn't know how to distinguish 
>> between *finishing* an access normally and *aborting* an access abnormally.  
>> Some kinds of property/subscript implementation — ones currently reserved 
>> for the standard library, but likely to be eventually offered to users in 
>> some form — depend on doing extra work no matter how the access is 
>> terminated, e.g. to release a buffer pointer.  (In fact, in general this 
>> applies even to get/set implementations, because even if we decided not to 
>> call the setter when an error was thrown, we would at least need to destroy 
>> the index argument that we were going to pass to the setter.)  In order to 
>> get consistent behavior between generic and non-generic accesses, we've just 
>> generally been finishing the access all the time.
>> 
>> I think it would be possible to teach this generic mechanism the difference 
>> between finishing and aborting an access, and thus to avo

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Slava Pestov via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello Chris, thanks for this draft!
> 
> May I suggest that the introduction mentions genericity on return type as 
> well?
> 
> subscript(_ index: Int) -> T
> 
> (I have database rows in mind.)

Yeah, there’s no reason to restrict it to either just the index or element type.

Slava

> 
> Gwendal
> 
>> Le 12 janv. 2017 à 18:53, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> a écrit :
>> 
>> Ok, I've got a draft up as a gist: 
>> https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/6c681677d44903045587bf75fb17eb25 
>> 
>> 
>> Before I submit it, could someone let me know if adding generics to 
>> subscripts would influence the ABI? ( still feel pretty clueless in that 
>> area).
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:05 PM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Okay,
>>> 
>>> I agree that throwing subscripts would be great to have. Likewise, 
>>> generic(and maybe even throwing) properties could be useful. However, I 
>>> think that for this proposal, it makes more sense to focus on just generic 
>>> subscripts, and mention throwing subscripts as "future improvements"? 
>> 
>> There's already a draft proposal covering throwing subscripts. You can 
>> mention it's existence, but I don't see a reason to say much. 
>> 
>>  - Doug
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:52 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 On Jan 11, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
>>> 
>>> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
>>> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
>>> proposal, just a JIRA: 
>>> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>> 
>> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the 
>> language, so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to 
>> link to the JIRA ticket.
>> 
>> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s 
>> something that the standard library could make good use of.
> 
> +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
> 
> -Chris
 
 
 I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I 
 figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my 
 question:
 
 Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a 
 [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one 
 that returns an unwrapped value or throws.
>>> 
>>> Throwing accessors are mostly straightforward, but there is a big 
>>> conceptual question: what happens if an accessor is called during error 
>>> propagation?  For example:
>>> 
>>>   objectWithThrowingSubscriptSetter[index].mutatingMethodThatCanThrow()
>>> 
>>> If the method throws, we currently still call the setter in order to finish 
>>> the access.  If the setter can throw, then, we might end up with multiple 
>>> errors being thrown at the same time, which isn't good — the language is 
>>> put in the awkward position of having to invent an arbitrary resolution 
>>> mechanism.
>>> 
>>> You might ask: why do we call the setter if an error is thrown?  Well, it's 
>>> complicated.  One reason is that the implementation technique we use for 
>>> generic access to subscripts and properties — accesses where we don't know 
>>> how the subscript/property is implemented — doesn't know how to distinguish 
>>> between *finishing* an access normally and *aborting* an access abnormally. 
>>>  Some kinds of property/subscript implementation — ones currently reserved 
>>> for the standard library, but likely to be eventually offered to users in 
>>> some form — depend on doing extra work no matter how the access is 
>>> terminated, e.g. to release a buffer pointer.  (In fact, in general this 
>>> applies even to get/set implementations, because even if we decided not to 
>>> call the setter when an error was thrown, we would at least need to destroy 
>>> the index argument tha

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution]

Hello Chris, thanks for this draft!

May I suggest that the introduction mentions genericity on return type as well?

subscript(_ index: Int) -> T

(I have database rows in mind.)

Gwendal

> Le 12 janv. 2017 à 18:53, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
>  a écrit :
> 
> Ok, I've got a draft up as a gist: 
> https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/6c681677d44903045587bf75fb17eb25 
> 
> 
> Before I submit it, could someone let me know if adding generics to 
> subscripts would influence the ABI? ( still feel pretty clueless in that 
> area).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:05 PM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> 
>> Okay,
>> 
>> I agree that throwing subscripts would be great to have. Likewise, 
>> generic(and maybe even throwing) properties could be useful. However, I 
>> think that for this proposal, it makes more sense to focus on just generic 
>> subscripts, and mention throwing subscripts as "future improvements"? 
> 
> There's already a draft proposal covering throwing subscripts. You can 
> mention it's existence, but I don't see a reason to say much. 
> 
>  - Doug
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:52 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 
 On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
>> 
>> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
>> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
>> proposal, just a JIRA: 
>> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
>>  
>> 
>>  
> 
> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the 
> language, so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to 
> link to the JIRA ticket.
> 
> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s 
> something that the standard library could make good use of.
 
 +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
 
 -Chris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I 
>>> figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my 
>>> question:
>>> 
>>> Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a 
>>> [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one that 
>>> returns an unwrapped value or throws.
>> 
>> Throwing accessors are mostly straightforward, but there is a big conceptual 
>> question: what happens if an accessor is called during error propagation?  
>> For example:
>> 
>>   objectWithThrowingSubscriptSetter[index].mutatingMethodThatCanThrow()
>> 
>> If the method throws, we currently still call the setter in order to finish 
>> the access.  If the setter can throw, then, we might end up with multiple 
>> errors being thrown at the same time, which isn't good — the language is put 
>> in the awkward position of having to invent an arbitrary resolution 
>> mechanism.
>> 
>> You might ask: why do we call the setter if an error is thrown?  Well, it's 
>> complicated.  One reason is that the implementation technique we use for 
>> generic access to subscripts and properties — accesses where we don't know 
>> how the subscript/property is implemented — doesn't know how to distinguish 
>> between *finishing* an access normally and *aborting* an access abnormally.  
>> Some kinds of property/subscript implementation — ones currently reserved 
>> for the standard library, but likely to be eventually offered to users in 
>> some form — depend on doing extra work no matter how the access is 
>> terminated, e.g. to release a buffer pointer.  (In fact, in general this 
>> applies even to get/set implementations, because even if we decided not to 
>> call the setter when an error was thrown, we would at least need to destroy 
>> the index argument that we were going to pass to the setter.)  In order to 
>> get consistent behavior between generic and non-generic accesses, we've just 
>> generally been finishing the access all the time.
>> 
>> I think it would be possible to teach this generic mechanism the difference 
>> between finishing and aborting an access, and thus to

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution]

Thanks for putting this together!  I’m looking forward to seeing this make it 
into the language!

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 11:53 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> Ok, I've got a draft up as a gist: 
> https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/6c681677d44903045587bf75fb17eb25 
> 
> 
> Before I submit it, could someone let me know if adding generics to 
> subscripts would influence the ABI? ( still feel pretty clueless in that 
> area).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:05 PM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> 
>> Okay,
>> 
>> I agree that throwing subscripts would be great to have. Likewise, 
>> generic(and maybe even throwing) properties could be useful. However, I 
>> think that for this proposal, it makes more sense to focus on just generic 
>> subscripts, and mention throwing subscripts as "future improvements"? 
> 
> There's already a draft proposal covering throwing subscripts. You can 
> mention it's existence, but I don't see a reason to say much. 
> 
>  - Doug
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:52 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 
 On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
>> 
>> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
>> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
>> proposal, just a JIRA: 
>> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
>>  
>> 
>>  
> 
> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the 
> language, so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to 
> link to the JIRA ticket.
> 
> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s 
> something that the standard library could make good use of.
 
 +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
 
 -Chris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I 
>>> figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my 
>>> question:
>>> 
>>> Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a 
>>> [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one that 
>>> returns an unwrapped value or throws.
>> 
>> Throwing accessors are mostly straightforward, but there is a big conceptual 
>> question: what happens if an accessor is called during error propagation?  
>> For example:
>> 
>>   objectWithThrowingSubscriptSetter[index].mutatingMethodThatCanThrow()
>> 
>> If the method throws, we currently still call the setter in order to finish 
>> the access.  If the setter can throw, then, we might end up with multiple 
>> errors being thrown at the same time, which isn't good — the language is put 
>> in the awkward position of having to invent an arbitrary resolution 
>> mechanism.
>> 
>> You might ask: why do we call the setter if an error is thrown?  Well, it's 
>> complicated.  One reason is that the implementation technique we use for 
>> generic access to subscripts and properties — accesses where we don't know 
>> how the subscript/property is implemented — doesn't know how to distinguish 
>> between *finishing* an access normally and *aborting* an access abnormally.  
>> Some kinds of property/subscript implementation — ones currently reserved 
>> for the standard library, but likely to be eventually offered to users in 
>> some form — depend on doing extra work no matter how the access is 
>> terminated, e.g. to release a buffer pointer.  (In fact, in general this 
>> applies even to get/set implementations, because even if we decided not to 
>> call the setter when an error was thrown, we would at least need to destroy 
>> the index argument that we were going to pass to the setter.)  In order to 
>> get consistent behavior between generic and non-generic accesses, we've just 
>> generally been finishing the access all the time.
>> 
>> I think it would be possible to teach this generic mechanism the difference 
>> between finishing and aborting an access, and thus to avoid calling setters 
>> or otherwise doing arbitrary work that's allowed to throw during an

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution]

Ok, I've got a draft up as a gist:
https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/6c681677d44903045587bf75fb17eb25

Before I submit it, could someone let me know if adding generics to
subscripts would influence the ABI? ( still feel pretty clueless in that
area).

Thanks!

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:05 PM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Okay,
>
> I agree that throwing subscripts would be great to have. Likewise,
> generic(and maybe even throwing) properties could be useful. However, I
> think that for this proposal, it makes more sense to focus on just generic
> subscripts, and mention throwing subscripts as "future improvements"?
>
>
> There's already a draft proposal covering throwing subscripts. You can
> mention it's existence, but I don't see a reason to say much.
>
>  - Doug
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:52 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
>>
>> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current
>> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a
>> proposal, just a JIRA: https://bugs.swift.org/b
>> rowse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
>>
>>
>> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the
>> language, so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to
>> link to the JIRA ticket.
>>
>> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s
>> something that the standard library could make good use of.
>>
>>
>> +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but
>> I figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my
>> question:
>>
>> Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create
>> a [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one
>> that returns an unwrapped value or throws.
>>
>>
>> Throwing accessors are mostly straightforward, but there is a big
>> conceptual question: what happens if an accessor is called during error
>> propagation?  For example:
>>
>>   objectWithThrowingSubscriptSetter[index].mutatingMethodThatCanThrow()
>>
>> If the method throws, we currently still call the setter in order to
>> finish the access.  If the setter can throw, then, we might end up with
>> multiple errors being thrown at the same time, which isn't good — the
>> language is put in the awkward position of having to invent an arbitrary
>> resolution mechanism.
>>
>> You might ask: why do we call the setter if an error is thrown?  Well,
>> it's complicated.  One reason is that the implementation technique we use
>> for generic access to subscripts and properties — accesses where we don't
>> know how the subscript/property is implemented — doesn't know how to
>> distinguish between *finishing* an access normally and *aborting* an access
>> abnormally.  Some kinds of property/subscript implementation — ones
>> currently reserved for the standard library, but likely to be eventually
>> offered to users in some form — depend on doing extra work no matter how
>> the access is terminated, e.g. to release a buffer pointer.  (In fact, in
>> general this applies even to get/set implementations, because even if we
>> decided not to call the setter when an error was thrown, we would at least
>> need to destroy the index argument that we were going to pass to the
>> setter.)  In order to get consistent behavior between generic and
>> non-generic accesses, we've just generally been finishing the access all
>> the time.
>>
>> I think it would be possible to teach this generic mechanism the
>> difference between finishing and aborting an access, and thus to avoid
>> calling setters or otherwise doing arbitrary work that's allowed to throw
>> during an abort.  However, we would first have to decide that those are
>> indeed the correct semantics and that setters should not be called after a
>> throw, and that would be a change in behavior.
>>
>> John.
>>
>> ___
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Chris Eidhof
>
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listi

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:05 PM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> Okay,
> 
> I agree that throwing subscripts would be great to have. Likewise, 
> generic(and maybe even throwing) properties could be useful. However, I think 
> that for this proposal, it makes more sense to focus on just generic 
> subscripts, and mention throwing subscripts as "future improvements"? 

There's already a draft proposal covering throwing subscripts. You can mention 
it's existence, but I don't see a reason to say much. 

 - Doug


> 
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:52 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
 On Jan 11, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution 
  wrote:
 On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
  wrote:
 
 On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
  wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
>> 
>> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
>> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
>> proposal, just a JIRA: 
>> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
>>  
> 
> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the 
> language, so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to 
> link to the JIRA ticket.
> 
> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s 
> something that the standard library could make good use of.
 
 +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
 
 -Chris
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I 
>>> figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my 
>>> question:
>>> 
>>> Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a 
>>> [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one that 
>>> returns an unwrapped value or throws.
>> 
>> Throwing accessors are mostly straightforward, but there is a big conceptual 
>> question: what happens if an accessor is called during error propagation?  
>> For example:
>> 
>>   objectWithThrowingSubscriptSetter[index].mutatingMethodThatCanThrow()
>> 
>> If the method throws, we currently still call the setter in order to finish 
>> the access.  If the setter can throw, then, we might end up with multiple 
>> errors being thrown at the same time, which isn't good — the language is put 
>> in the awkward position of having to invent an arbitrary resolution 
>> mechanism.
>> 
>> You might ask: why do we call the setter if an error is thrown?  Well, it's 
>> complicated.  One reason is that the implementation technique we use for 
>> generic access to subscripts and properties — accesses where we don't know 
>> how the subscript/property is implemented — doesn't know how to distinguish 
>> between *finishing* an access normally and *aborting* an access abnormally.  
>> Some kinds of property/subscript implementation — ones currently reserved 
>> for the standard library, but likely to be eventually offered to users in 
>> some form — depend on doing extra work no matter how the access is 
>> terminated, e.g. to release a buffer pointer.  (In fact, in general this 
>> applies even to get/set implementations, because even if we decided not to 
>> call the setter when an error was thrown, we would at least need to destroy 
>> the index argument that we were going to pass to the setter.)  In order to 
>> get consistent behavior between generic and non-generic accesses, we've just 
>> generally been finishing the access all the time.
>> 
>> I think it would be possible to teach this generic mechanism the difference 
>> between finishing and aborting an access, and thus to avoid calling setters 
>> or otherwise doing arbitrary work that's allowed to throw during an abort.  
>> However, we would first have to decide that those are indeed the correct 
>> semantics and that setters should not be called after a throw, and that 
>> would be a change in behavior.
>> 
>> John.
>> 
>> ___
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Chris Eidhof
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution]

Okay,

I agree that throwing subscripts would be great to have. Likewise,
generic(and maybe even throwing) properties could be useful. However, I
think that for this proposal, it makes more sense to focus on just generic
subscripts, and mention throwing subscripts as "future improvements"?

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:52 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
>
> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current
> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a
> proposal, just a JIRA: https://bugs.swift.org/
> browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
>
>
> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the language,
> so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to link to the
> JIRA ticket.
>
> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s something
> that the standard library could make good use of.
>
>
> +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
> I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I
> figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my
> question:
>
> Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a
> [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one that
> returns an unwrapped value or throws.
>
>
> Throwing accessors are mostly straightforward, but there is a big
> conceptual question: what happens if an accessor is called during error
> propagation?  For example:
>
>   objectWithThrowingSubscriptSetter[index].mutatingMethodThatCanThrow()
>
> If the method throws, we currently still call the setter in order to
> finish the access.  If the setter can throw, then, we might end up with
> multiple errors being thrown at the same time, which isn't good — the
> language is put in the awkward position of having to invent an arbitrary
> resolution mechanism.
>
> You might ask: why do we call the setter if an error is thrown?  Well,
> it's complicated.  One reason is that the implementation technique we use
> for generic access to subscripts and properties — accesses where we don't
> know how the subscript/property is implemented — doesn't know how to
> distinguish between *finishing* an access normally and *aborting* an access
> abnormally.  Some kinds of property/subscript implementation — ones
> currently reserved for the standard library, but likely to be eventually
> offered to users in some form — depend on doing extra work no matter how
> the access is terminated, e.g. to release a buffer pointer.  (In fact, in
> general this applies even to get/set implementations, because even if we
> decided not to call the setter when an error was thrown, we would at least
> need to destroy the index argument that we were going to pass to the
> setter.)  In order to get consistent behavior between generic and
> non-generic accesses, we've just generally been finishing the access all
> the time.
>
> I think it would be possible to teach this generic mechanism the
> difference between finishing and aborting an access, and thus to avoid
> calling setters or otherwise doing arbitrary work that's allowed to throw
> during an abort.  However, we would first have to decide that those are
> indeed the correct semantics and that setters should not be called after a
> throw, and that would be a change in behavior.
>
> John.
>
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>


-- 
Chris Eidhof
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Slava Pestov via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:53 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> 
> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
> 
> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
> proposal, just a JIRA: 
> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
>  
> 
>  
 
 It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the language, 
 so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to link to the 
 JIRA ticket.
 
 I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s something 
 that the standard library could make good use of.
>>> 
>>> +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
>>> 
>>> -Chris
>> 
>> 
>> I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I 
>> figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my 
>> question:
>> 
>> Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a 
>> [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one that 
>> returns an unwrapped value or throws.
> 
> These topics do tend to come up together they are the two unnecessary 
> limitations subscripts have right now.  I hope both make it into Swift 4.  
> I’m sure we’ll see a proposal after phase 2 opens up.

Another limitation is that subscripts cannot have default arguments. I don’t 
believe this even requires an evolution proposal, it’s a quirk of the 
implementation and can be fixed by cleaning up some duplicated code paths in 
SILGen. If anyone is interested in looking at this I can point you to the code 
in question.

Slava

> 
>> 
>> Thanks, -- E
>> 
>> ___
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org 
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution 
>> 
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org 
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution 
> 
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[John McCall via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 1:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 
 [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
 
 When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
 implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
 proposal, just a JIRA: 
 https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
  
 
  
>>> 
>>> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the language, 
>>> so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to link to the 
>>> JIRA ticket.
>>> 
>>> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s something 
>>> that the standard library could make good use of.
>> 
>> +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
>> 
>> -Chris
> 
> 
> I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I 
> figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my 
> question:
> 
> Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a 
> [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one that 
> returns an unwrapped value or throws.

Throwing accessors are mostly straightforward, but there is a big conceptual 
question: what happens if an accessor is called during error propagation?  For 
example:

  objectWithThrowingSubscriptSetter[index].mutatingMethodThatCanThrow()

If the method throws, we currently still call the setter in order to finish the 
access.  If the setter can throw, then, we might end up with multiple errors 
being thrown at the same time, which isn't good — the language is put in the 
awkward position of having to invent an arbitrary resolution mechanism.

You might ask: why do we call the setter if an error is thrown?  Well, it's 
complicated.  One reason is that the implementation technique we use for 
generic access to subscripts and properties — accesses where we don't know how 
the subscript/property is implemented — doesn't know how to distinguish between 
*finishing* an access normally and *aborting* an access abnormally.  Some kinds 
of property/subscript implementation — ones currently reserved for the standard 
library, but likely to be eventually offered to users in some form — depend on 
doing extra work no matter how the access is terminated, e.g. to release a 
buffer pointer.  (In fact, in general this applies even to get/set 
implementations, because even if we decided not to call the setter when an 
error was thrown, we would at least need to destroy the index argument that we 
were going to pass to the setter.)  In order to get consistent behavior between 
generic and non-generic accesses, we've just generally been finishing the 
access all the time.

I think it would be possible to teach this generic mechanism the difference 
between finishing and aborting an access, and thus to avoid calling setters or 
otherwise doing arbitrary work that's allowed to throw during an abort.  
However, we would first have to decide that those are indeed the correct 
semantics and that setters should not be called after a throw, and that would 
be a change in behavior.

John.___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 
 [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
 
 When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
 implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
 proposal, just a JIRA: 
 https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
  
 
  
>>> 
>>> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the language, 
>>> so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to link to the 
>>> JIRA ticket.
>>> 
>>> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s something 
>>> that the standard library could make good use of.
>> 
>> +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
>> 
>> -Chris
> 
> 
> I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I 
> figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my 
> question:
> 
> Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a 
> [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one that 
> returns an unwrapped value or throws.

These topics do tend to come up together they are the two unnecessary 
limitations subscripts have right now.  I hope both make it into Swift 4.  I’m 
sure we’ll see a proposal after phase 2 opens up.

> 
> Thanks, -- E
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Erica Sadun  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
 mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
 
 [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
 
 When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
 implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
 proposal, just a JIRA: 
 https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
  
 
  
>>> 
>>> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the language, 
>>> so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to link to the 
>>> JIRA ticket.
>>> 
>>> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s something 
>>> that the standard library could make good use of.
>> 
>> +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
>> 
>> -Chris
> 
> 
> I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I 
> figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my 
> question:
> 
> Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a 
> [safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one that 
> returns an unwrapped value or throws.

Throwing subscripts (and properties) do seem to fit well into the language 
model. There’s a well-written proposal draft by Brent here:


https://github.com/brentdax/swift-evolution/blob/throwing-properties/proposals/-throwing-properties.md
 


- Doug


___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Erica Sadun via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
>>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
>>> 
>>> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
>>> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
>>> proposal, just a JIRA: 
>>> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>> 
>> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the language, 
>> so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to link to the 
>> JIRA ticket.
>> 
>> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s something 
>> that the standard library could make good use of.
> 
> +1, this would be clearly great to happen.
> 
> -Chris


I apologize for adding to this topic rather than starting a new one, but I 
figure people interested in subscripts would be more likely to see my question:

Is there a good reason subscripts cannot throw? Right now you can create a 
[safe: index] subscript to return an optional but you can't create one that 
returns an unwrapped value or throws.

Thanks, -- E

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Chris Lattner via swift-evolution]

On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
 wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
>> 
>> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
>> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
>> proposal, just a JIRA: 
>> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22
>>  
>> 
>>  
> 
> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the language, so 
> it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to link to the JIRA 
> ticket.
> 
> I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s something 
> that the standard library could make good use of.

+1, this would be clearly great to happen.

-Chris

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:44 PM, Stephen Celis  wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the language, 
>> so it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to link to the 
>> JIRA ticket.
>> 
>>  - Doug
> 
> I was under the impression that it was part of the "Complete Generics" goal, 
> specifically here: 
> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/GenericsManifesto.md#generic-subscripts
>  
> 

The “generics manifesto” is a set of ideas that are *heavily* biased by my own 
goals for the generics system. They’re not plan-of-record, and some might even 
be terrible ideas for Swift. Each thing there still needs to go through the 
usual swift-evolution process to get proper design treatment before becoming a 
part of the language, and I expect that process to flush out better 
ideas/problems with those ideas/unexpected interactions/etc.

> Will most of the other unimplemented points need proposals, as well?

Yes.

- Doug

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Stephen Celis via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the language, so 
> it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to link to the JIRA 
> ticket.
> 
>   - Doug

I was under the impression that it was part of the "Complete Generics" goal, 
specifically here: 
https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/GenericsManifesto.md#generic-subscripts

Will most of the other unimplemented points need proposals, as well?

Stephen

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution]

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> [Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]
> 
> When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
> implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a 
> proposal, just a JIRA: 
> https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22 
> 
>  

It’s a nontrivial new user-facing feature with new syntax in the language, so 
it’ll need a proposal. ‘twould be good for the proposal to link to the JIRA 
ticket.

I’ve only heard positive reactions toward this feature, and it’s something that 
the standard library could make good use of.

- Doug

> 
> 
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Recently, I've bumped into the lack of generic subscripts a few times. There 
>> are a bunch of useful things you could do with it. It's in the generics 
>> manifesto as well: 
>> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/GenericsManifesto.md#generic-subscripts
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> I'm thinking of drafting up a proposal for this (also thanks to 
>> https://twitter.com/dgregor79/status/818868882316214274 
>> ).
>> 
>> Are there any good arguments against adding this?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Chris Eidhof
>> ___
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org 
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution]

on Tue Jan 10 2017, Chris Eidhof  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Recently, I've bumped into the lack of generic subscripts a few times.
> There are a bunch of useful things you could do with it. It's in the
> generics manifesto as well:
> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/GenericsManifesto.md#generic-subscripts
>
> I'm thinking of drafting up a proposal for this (also thanks to
> https://twitter.com/dgregor79/status/818868882316214274).
>
> Are there any good arguments against adding this?

None.

-- 
-Dave

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution]

[Forgot to CC swift-evolution the first time]

When this came up last, it was seen as more so a bug in the current 
implementation, rather than an explicit choice. There's no need for a proposal, 
just a JIRA: 
https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-115?jql=text%20~%20%22Generic%20subscript%22 
 


> On Jan 10, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Recently, I've bumped into the lack of generic subscripts a few times. There 
> are a bunch of useful things you could do with it. It's in the generics 
> manifesto as well: 
> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/GenericsManifesto.md#generic-subscripts
>  
> 
> 
> I'm thinking of drafting up a proposal for this (also thanks to 
> https://twitter.com/dgregor79/status/818868882316214274 
> ).
> 
> Are there any good arguments against adding this?
> 
> -- 
> Chris Eidhof
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

[swift-evolution] Generic Subscripts

[Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution]

Hi,

Recently, I've bumped into the lack of generic subscripts a few times.
There are a bunch of useful things you could do with it. It's in the
generics manifesto as well:
https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/GenericsManifesto.md#generic-subscripts

I'm thinking of drafting up a proposal for this (also thanks to
https://twitter.com/dgregor79/status/818868882316214274).

Are there any good arguments against adding this?

-- 
Chris Eidhof
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution