Apologies if this comes through as a duplicate for some people, but I'm not
sure if it went through the first time; I seem to have some trouble with
ProofPoint, who apparently do not monitor their false positive reporting
system. As such my mail server is still listed from eight months ago despi
> On Apr 13, 2017, at 7:29 PM, Félix Cloutier via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> template
> void foo(T... args)
> {
> return bar(args...);
> }
>
> In this bad but simple example, bar is called with the same* parameters as
> foo. Parameter unpacking uses the postfix … operator.
>
> * To so
template
void foo(T... args)
{
return bar(args...);
}
In this bad but simple example, bar is called with the same* parameters as foo.
Parameter unpacking uses the postfix … operator.
* To some extent. Doing the right thing adds a lot of noise.
> Le 13 avr. 2017 à 11:18, David Sweeris a
> On Apr 12, 2017, at 20:31, Félix Cloutier via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> I don't have a strong opinion; are we sure enough that this is what we want
> the postfix operator … to be for? For instance, C++ uses it a lot with
> variadic templates.
I don't think the two usages conflict... may
I like the principle in general, but I have some concerns about the range
syntax. Firstly my concern is that allowing either end of the range to be
omitted feels like a possible bug to me, so I'm not sure if we should encourage
that?
I'm wondering if a slightly better alternative might to be to
I don't have a strong opinion; are we sure enough that this is what we want the
postfix operator … to be for? For instance, C++ uses it a lot with variadic
templates.
> Le 12 avr. 2017 à 13:21, David Hart via swift-evolution
> a écrit :
>
> I remember being against this feature when it was fi
+1, very nice proposal. I think there was some discussion about this before,
glad to see it being fleshed out into a full proposal. My only nitpick is that
I think feel like the syntax `sequence[i…]` is awkward because `…` implies the
entirety of a range (1…5 includes 1 and 5 and everything in b
I remember being against this feature when it was first discussed long ago. But
I’ve since appreciated how elegant it is. I also like the i… was chosen instead
of i..<
I guess Range would be a better name for the generic protocol to represent all
ranges. But its too late for that now. Correct?
Strong +1, glad to see this happening!
Nevin
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
Hi Swift community,
Another proposal pitch. These operators were mentioned briefly in the String
manifesto as prefixing/suffixing is very common with strings.
Online copy here:
https://github.com/airspeedswift/swift-evolution/blob/71b819d30676c44234bac1aa61fc5c39bcf3/proposals/-OneSided
10 matches
Mail list logo
