Probably I didn't understand your proposal. What do you want to change exactly?
I thought:
public func sequence<T>(first: T, next: @escaping (T) -> T?) ->
UnfoldFirstSequence<T> { ... }
To:
public func sequence<T>(first: T?, next: @escaping (T) -> T?) ->
UnfoldFirstSequence<T> { ... }
> Am 15.08.2016 um 22:17 schrieb Tim Vermeulen <tvermeu...@me.com>:
>
> You can’t; the `first` parameter has type `T`, not `T?`.
>
>> On 15 Aug 2016, at 22:10, Maximilian Hünenberger <m.huenenber...@me.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> If you pass "nil" to "first" isn't this an empty sequence? So it would be
>> redundant.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Maximilian
>>
>>> Am 15.08.2016 um 01:27 schrieb Tim Vermeulen via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org>:
>>>
>>> sequence(first:next:) takes a non-optional first argument. Is there a
>>> reason for that? sequence(state:next:) allows empty sequences, and I don’t
>>> see why sequence(first:next:) shouldn’t. The fix would be to simply add the
>>> `?` in the function signature; no other changes are required to make it
>>> work.
>>>
>>> I considered just filing a bug report, but since this is a change of the
>>> public API...
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
