> On Jan 29, 2017, at 7:02 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>>> var popcount: Int { get }
>>
>> I'm not super-fond of this name; I assume it's a term of art, but it's
>> a pretty obscure one. Maybe `numberOfOnes`? `onesWithin`?
>
> Yes, the rationale is that it's a term of art. I think if you were
> going to call it something else, you'd need to mention "one _bits_" in
> the name. If we can come up with a name that's obviously better, that's
> great, but lacking a clear winner we should go with the already-accepted
> term.
Okay, but the same could be said for `trailingZeros`. Does that also need to be
something like `trailingZerosInBinaryRepresentation` or what-have-you?
>> It might make a great deal of sense to support bitwise operations on
>> this type,
>
> I think that's a model of SetAlgebra, then, isn't it?
Hmm, arguably. It's a shame that we won't be able to use it with things like
`OptionSet`, though.
> Personally I don't think the strict separation of SetAlgebra and things
> that do bitwise operations makes sense, but I know some people feel
> strongly that it would be confusing for users to expose set operations
> with bitwise operator names. IMO using | for union and & for
> intersection would be beautiful. But that's a story for another day...
Honestly, if I were designing Swift from scratch, I might consider having a
`BitView` type and `bits` member which acts as a collection of `Bool`s (or
maybe a set of offsets of `1` bits?) and conforms to `SetAlgebra`; you could
then perform bitwise operations through the `bits`, but not directly on the
value itself. But that ship has clearly sailed.
--
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
