Some alternatives to 'safe:' existing: bounded: valid:
-Thorsten > Am 29.04.2016 um 00:20 schrieb Luis Henrique B. Sousa via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org>: > > Thanks Vladimir, your considerations and suggestions are totally valid, I'm > going to change the document accordingly. > Also as a non-native English speaker I think that other words could fit > better, such as 'tolerant' or 'permissive' -- but I dunno if they would look > great as a label. We will come up with the right keyword for it. > > In relation to bad code, it could be a valid argument if my initial proposal > was under discussion instead, where the default 'fail fast' behaviour would > be "camouflaged" and bugs would be more difficult to catch. In this new > proposal we have such features explicitly defined, where the user will be > familiar with what it does and what results to expect for. I don't see a way > that it could drive to bad written code. > > - Luis > >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Vladimir.S <sva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I support this proposal. Probably we all should select the best labels >> (truncate/lenient or other). As not native English speaker, I don't feel >> like 'lenient' is well-known word or often-used word in software >> development. But all this just a details we need to discuss. >> >> What I think could be improved - is a motivation section. IMO the main >> purpose of proposed features is not to "eliminate the need for validations, >> reduce the number of fatal errors in runtime" but to allow us to have more >> clean code when *such validations just don't required*, when we just *don't >> care* about details. >> I.e. in situations, when we'll use [max(-1, a.startIndex) ..< min(5, >> a.endIndex)] and bounds checking manually to have the same result as in >> proposed subscripts. >> >> I.e. it is just a very handy addition to standard methods for collections, >> just like we can get first element by index but we have handy property >> '.first' for this purpose. Btw, it does not raise error, but returns T?. I >> think you can add notes regarding analogues with .first / .last >> properties(and probably with other) in proposal text. >> >> Someone can argue, that by using these subscripts, coders can write 'bad' >> code - but I can't accept such an argument - 'bad' coders already can write >> 'bad' code with other features of Swift and at the end they can implement >> these subscripts in their project and write 'bad' code. Should we stop to >> introduce handy and explicit feature for 'good' coders because of this? >> >>> On 28.04.2016 15:11, Luis Henrique B. Sousa via swift-evolution wrote: >>> As we have discussed throughout this thread, the initial proposal was >>> modified to include alternative subscript methods instead of modifying the >>> default operator/subscript behaviour. >>> The first draft is >>> here: >>> https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/more-lenient-subscripts/proposals/nnnn-more-lenient-collections-subscripts.md >>> >>> I've also put this as a gist so that you can leave comments with respect to >>> the proposal document itself. Any suggestion or help is very welcome. >>> https://gist.github.com/luish/832c34ee913159f130d97a914810dbd8 >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> - Luis >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Luis Henrique B. Sousa <lshso...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:lshso...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> This proposal seeks to provide a safer ..< (aka half-open range >>> operator) in order to avoid **Array index out of range** errors in >>> execution time. >>> >>> Here is my first draft for this proposal: >>> >>> https://github.com/luish/swift-evolution/blob/half-open-range-operator/proposals/nnnn-safer-half-open-range-operator.md >>> >>> In short, doing that in Swift causes a runtime error: >>> >>> leta =[1,2,3] >>> letb =a[0..<5] >>> print(b) >>> >>> > Error running code: >>> > fatal error: Array index out of range >>> >>> The proposed solution is to slice the array returning all elements that >>> are below the half-open operator, even though the number of elements is >>> lesser than the ending of the half-open operator. So the example above >>> would return [1,2,3]. >>> We can see this very behaviour in other languages, such as Python and >>> Ruby as shown in the proposal draft. >>> >>> This would eliminate the need for verifications on the array size >>> before slicing it -- and consequently runtime errors in cases when the >>> programmer didn't. >>> >>> Viewing that it is my very first proposal, any feedback will be helpful. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Luis Henrique Borges >>> @luishborges >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
