> On Jan 31, 2017, at 1:16 PM, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> I think whether enumerated() is justified as a method on Sequence is one
> example of a wider question which definitely needs some discussion, which is:
> where should the standard library draw the line in providing convenience
> functions that can easily be composed from other functions in the std lib?
> Here’s another example:
>
> SE-100
> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0100-add-sequence-based-init-and-merge-to-dictionary.md>
> is a proposal to add an init to Dictionary from a sequence of key/value
> pairs. It’s a commonly requested feature, and IMO much needed and should be
> added as soon as we move to the appropriate phase in Swift’s evolution.
>
> Another commonly requested Dictionary feature is similar: add a
> Dictionary.init that takes a sequence, and a closure that maps that sequence
> to keys. This is useful, for example, when you have a sequence of objects
> that you frequently need to index into via one property on those objects, so
> you want to build a fast lookup cache using that property.
>
> Now, if we implement SE-100, that second request can be easily composed. It
> would be something like Dictionary(sequence.lazy.map { (key: $0.someProperty,
> value: $0) } )
>
> Some people look at that line of code and think sure, that’s what I’d do and
> it’s easy enough that the second helper shouldn’t be added as it’s
> superfluous. Others look at it and say that it is unreadable clever-code FP
> nonsense, and we should just add the helper method because most programmers
> wouldn’t be able to read or write that easily.
>
> As we expand (and maybe contract :) the standard library, this kind of
> question comes up a lot, so it is worth setting out some criteria for judging
> these
> “helper” methods. Here’s my take on such a list (warning: objectivity and
> subjectivity blended together in the below).
This is a great analysis and list of criteria. Thanks for putting this
together Ben!
>
> 1. Is it truly a frequent operation?
>
> The operation needs to carry its weight. Even once we have ABI stability, so
> the size of the std lib becomes less of a concern as it could ship as part of
> the OS, we still need to keep helper method growth under control. APIs
> bristling with methods like an over-decorated Xmas tree are bad for
> usability. As mentioned in the String manifesto, String+Foundation currently
> has over 200 methods/properties. Helpers are no good if you can’t find them
> to use them.
>
> Someone mentioned that they actually don’t find themselves using enumerated()
> all that often. I suspect enumerated in its current form isn’t all that
> useful. In a quick (and non-scientific) review of search results for its use
> on GitHub, nearly all the examples I see of it are either 1) misuse – see
> more below, or 2) use of it to perform the equivalent of in-place map where
> the index is used to subscript into the array and replace it with a
> transformed element.
>
> I think the std lib needs an in-place map, and if enumerated() is removed,
> this one most-common use case should be added at the same time.
I just did a quick search in a couple of projects and found a handful of good
examples of valid uses of `enumerated`. I have simplified the examples from
real world code, but I think they demonstrate the kinds of things this is good
for.
// only show the first 5 views
for (i, view) in views.enumerated() {
view.hidden = i >= 5
}
// apply alternating view background colors
for (i, view) in views.enumerated() {
view.backgroundColor = i % 2 ? bgColor1 : bgColor2
}
// linear layout
for (i, view) in views.enumerated() {
let x = width * CGFloat(i)
view.frame = CGRect(x: x, y: 0, width: width, height: height)
}
// deriving locations for an equally spaced gradient
let locations = colors.enumerated.map { CGFloat($0.0) / CGFloat(colors.count -
1) }
There are other ways to accomplish similar things (use `prefix` and `dropFirst`
comes to mind), but many reasonable people would argue that using `enumerated`
is a very straightforward way to do a lot of things.
>
> 2. Is the helper more readable? Is the composed equivalent obvious at a
> glance?
>
> When an operation is very common, the big win with a helper method is it
> creates a readable vocabulary. If enumerated() is very common, and everyone
> sees it everywhere, it makes that code easier to read at a glance.
>
> That said, I think that the alternative – zip(0…, sequence) – is just as
> readable once you are familiar with zip and ranges, two concepts that, IMO at
> least, it is important that every Swift programmer learn about early on. I
> would even go so far as to say that enumerated is harmful if it discourages
> new users from discovering zip.
This is a very good point. Requiring programmers to zip with a range could
help them to learn to think a little bit differently and learn more general
tools. That’s a good thing.
The other thing it does is make the order of the index and the value more clear
at the call site. I think this is a very important point. I always forget
which order `enumerated` uses every time I reach to use it.
Of course the current alternative is actually `zip(0..<sequence.count,
sequence)` which is not so great.
In order to make `zip(0…, sequence)` a workable alternative we would need to
grab `…` as a unary postfix operator which produces a sequence by incrementing
values. Is that something we want to do? If the answer turns out to be yes,
then I am in agreement with your analysis. The composed alternative would be
superior and `enumerated` wouldn’t carry it’s weight.
>
> OTOH, an example that I think is strongly justified on readability grounds is
> Sequence.all(match:), a function that checks that every element in a sequence
> matches a predicate. This is by far the most common extension for Sequence on
> GitHub. Yes, you can write this as !seq.contains(!predicate) but that far
> less readable – especially since it requires you write it with a closure that
> !’s the predicate i.e. !seq.contains { !predicate($0) }, because we don’t
> have a ! for composing with predicate functions (though maybe we should).
>
> 3. Does the helper have the flexibility to cover all common cases?
>
> This, I think, is where enumerated() really starts to fall down.
>
> Sometimes you want to start from not-zero, so maybe it should be
> Sequence.enumerated(startingFrom: Int = 0)
> Sometimes you want non-integer indices so maybe we should add indexed().
> Sometimes you want it the other way around (not for a for loop but for
> passing the elements directly into a mapping function) so now you need a flip.
> Sometimes you want to enumeration to run backwards in some way.
>
> Less of a problem if you’re already accustomed to composing your enumeration:
>
> Enumerate starting from 1: zip(1…, c)
> Enumerate indices: zip(c.indices, c)
> Need the pair to be the other way around: zip(c, 0…)
> Need the enumeration to run the other way: zip((0..<c.count).reversed,c) or
> zip(0…,c).reversed() or zip(0…,c.reversed()).
>
> Similarly, for the Dictionary helper – what if you want a sequence, and a
> closure to map keys to values, rather than values to keys?
>
> (zip also needs to retain its collection-ness, which is filed as SR-3760, a
> great starter proposal if anyone wants to take it on :)
>
> 4. Is there a correctness trap with the composed equivalent? Is there a
> correctness trap with the helper?
>
> As others noted on the thread, enumerated() used for indices encourages a
> possible correctness error:
>
> for (idx, element) = someSlice.enumerated() { } // slices aren’t zero based!
>
> Now, chances are that since out-of-bounds subscripting traps on arrays, this
> bug would be caught early on. But maybe not – especially if you ended up
> using it on an UnsafeBufferPointer slice (perhaps dropped in for performance
> reasons to replace an Array) and now all of a sudden you have a memory access
> violation that could go undetected.
>
> On the flip side: many operations on collections that use indices are hard to
> get right, especially ones that involve mutating as you go, like removing
> elements from a collection based on some criteria, where you have to work
> around index invalidation or fencepost errors. For this reason, the std lib
> probably ought to have a RangeReplaceableCollection.remove(where:) method so
> people don’t have to reinvent it and risk getting it wrong.
>
> 5. Is there a performance trap with the composed equivalent? Or with the
> helper?
>
> The composed example of Dictionary from a sequence+closure, you need to
> remember the .lazy part in sequence.lazy.map to avoid creating a temporary
> array for no reason. A helper method might lift that burden from the user.
> remove(where:) can easily be accidentally quadtratic, or perform needless
> element copies when there’s little or nothing to remove.
>
> Counter example: the fact that map is eager and chaining it creates temporary
> arrays needlessly is a performance problem caused by introducing it as a
> helper method.
>
> 6. Does the helper actually encourage misuse?
>
> This is a very common pattern when searching GitHub for uses of enumerated():
>
> for (index, _) in collection.enumerated() {
> mutate collect[index] in-place i.e. collection[index] += 1
> }.
>
> (or even they assign the element then don’t use it, for which specific case
> we don’t currently emit a warning)
>
> What the user really needs is just:
>
> for index in collection.indices { etc. }
>
> I expect if the standard way to do enumerated was with zip, people wouldn’t
> do this as often. In-place map would be even better.
>
> 8. Can a native implementation be made more performant than the equivalent
> composition?
>
> Dictionary.mapValues(transform: (Value)->T) can be implemented internally
> much more efficiently than just composing it with map and the key/value
> sequence initializer, because the layout of the hash table storage can be
> re-used in the new dictionary, even when the Value type is different.
>
>> On Jan 31, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> I've organized a number of Swift workshops over the last two years. There
>> are a couple of things that keep coming up, and a couple of mistakes that I
>> see people making over and over again. One of them is that in almost every
>> workshop, there's someone who thinks that `enumerated()` returns a list of
>> (index, element) pairs. This is only true for arrays. It breaks when using
>> array slices, or any other kind of collection. In our workshops, I sometimes
>> see people doing something like `x.reversed().enumerated()`, where `x` is an
>> array, and somehow it produces behavior they don't understand.
>>
>> A few ways I think this could be improved:
>>
>> - Move enumerated to Array
>> - Change enumerated to return `(Index, Iterator.Element)` (this would mean
>> we at least need to move it to collection)
>> - Remove enumerated
>> - Keep things as is
>>
>> In any case, just wanted to share my experience (gained from teaching
>> people).
>>
>> --
>> Chris Eidhof
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto: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
