Just for the reference. There was a lengthy discussion here in the mailing list back when the proposal was introduced: https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/thread.html#30191 <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/thread.html#30191>
Max > On Oct 31, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Daryle Walker via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Looking at Apple’s Swift (4) docs at their SDK site, shouldn’t there be an > “Integer” protocol between Numeric and BinaryInteger? Without that, there’s > no solution for Integer types that are either a non-binary radix or a > non-radix system (besides being over-broad with Numeric). > > What would move there are: isSigned, quotientAndRemainder, signum, %, %=, /, > and /=. > > Also, how is ~ supposed to work in a BinaryInteger that is not a > FixedWidthInteger? Extend the high bits to infinity? Maybe that operator > should move to the derived protocol. > > Oh, why can’t a non-binary Integer type be fixed-width? FixedWidthInteger > should be renamed “FixedWidthBinaryInteger,” which derives from BinaryInteger > and a new version of FixedWidthInteger. The new version peels off: max, min, > addingReportingOverflow, dividedReportingOverflow, dividingFullWidth, > multipliedFullWidth, multipliedReportingOverflow, remainderReportingOverflow, > and subtractingReportingOverflow. There’s also a “digitWidth” type property, > analogous to “bitWidth”. > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > 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
