on Fri Apr 08 2016, Erica Sadun <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> On Apr 6, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrah...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> >> on Wed Apr 06 2016, Erica Sadun <erica-AT-ericasadun.com> wrote: >> > >>> On Apr 6, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrah...@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> These all look reasonable to me. >>> >>> Lastly, if you want the positive stride reversed, you'd do just that: >>> >>> (0 ... 9).striding(by: 2).reverse() == [8, 6, 4, 2, 0] >>> >>> Also reasonable. >>> >>> -- >>> Dave >>> >>> Unless there's a compelling reason to fight here, it looks like the >>> opinion against where I'm standing is pretty overwhelming at least in >>> this subgroup. To simplify things going forward (and to avoid compiler >>> warnings, which as Dave A points out is probably an indication of bad >>> design more than bad users), I'm willing to adopt in as well. >> >> Thanks. In that case, I suggest that we entertain two separate >> proposals: >> >> 1. add the .striding(by: n) method. >> 2. add the other range operators. >> >> Though they both have obvious benefits, I expect #1 is a much easier >> sell than #2, which is one good reason to separate them. >> >> -- >> Dave > > I may have misunderstood the intent so I want to clarify: Dave, you'd like to > push on these > now (starting with #1) and not wait for the rest of the Range stuff to > come online, right?
I'd like to make progress on #1. I think we should hold the review until the new range stuff is reviewed (happening in the next few days). I'm still slightly undecided about #2, but I think it deserves its own distinct discussion in this list. #2 might imply some changes to the protocols we're introducing in the swift-3-indexing-model branch/proposal, so it needs a little time to percolate here I think. needing-to-get-back-to-proposal-writing-now'ly yr's, -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution