"that [Foo], when used in a function, should produce the latter form behind the scenes, requiring the developer to specify Array<Foo> if they actually need it to be an Array for some reason."
I disagree with this as a solution. I agree that Sequence or Collection is what is more often 'meant' but what you propose is an awkward to explain/defend betrayal, in my opinion. If I were learning the language and found out that a change so fundamental was made and that I could avoid the change by saying–so literally–the same thing but in a different way, I would not trust anything. "does something dramatically different happen if I use the other syntax" becomes a reasonable question. On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Haravikk via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > One thing that I see a lot in code, and sometimes have to stop myself from > doing, is using shorthand array types, such as [Foo], in function > declarations where CollectionType could just as easily be used. For > example, the following two declarations can take collections of values, but > the first will only take them in the form of an Array: > > func doSomething(values:[Foo]) { … } > func doSomething<C:CollectionType where C.Generator.Element:Foo>(values:C) > { … } > > The latter form is something that new users of Swift tend not to know they > can do, and which even experienced Swift developers may not use for the > sake of brevity, but it can come up quite a lot. What I’d like to propose > is that [Foo], when used in a function, should produce the latter form > behind the scenes, requiring the developer to specify Array<Foo> if they > actually need it to be an Array for some reason. Though this would become > inconsistent with variables/properties which would still have to be > Array<Foo> since a type is required. > > > An alternative would be if we could specify protocol generics in a more > succinct form, for example: > > func doSomething(values:Collection<Foo>) { … } > func doSomething(values:Sequence<Foo>) { … } // Many array functions are > linear anyway so could just as easily take sequences > > Note: This would not be the same as type-erased wrappers such as > AnySequence<Foo>, but rather a shorthand for "Sequence where > Generator.Element:Foo" > > > > In essence I’m hoping to discuss whether we should try to remove the > temptation to limit functions to arrays only or not, or if there are other > ways to encourage more use of sequence and collection for flexibility; I > try wherever possible to have my methods take sequences if they can, and > only take collections if they need to (and never arrays only), but I can > understand why not everyone does this, as it’s not the friendliest thing to > add and declaring [Foo] looks so much neater. > > _______________________________________________ > 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