on Sun Aug 14 2016, Tim Vermeulen <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> sequence(first:next:) takes a non-optional first argument. Is there a > reason for that? Yes; it's understandable and fits many common use cases. > sequence(state:next:) allows empty sequences, and I don’t see why > sequence(first:next:) shouldn’t. The question is, what's the use case? What user code would be simplified by complicating the API and implementation? > 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... -- -Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
