On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:25 Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Thank you guys for all your suggestions so far.
I understand the idea behind the generic subscript here, they are neat and
highly needed, but even this approach won’t solve my issue of clarity here.
The Array I extend here has an Element of type Value which is an enum
that wraps other types around (part of BSON).
I’d have to insert a huge pattern matching switch into that generic
subscript and unwrap every possible type. Don’t get me wrong, this would
work, because the result type is an optional, where I just can return nil
if nothing matches.
But again I lose the clarity from the readers prospective, because I don’t
know by reading code like array[at: 123] = someValue what kind of
subscript I’m using here.
As already suggested, the view workaround would result in the exact the
same syntax I look for, but it has it own downsides as I already mentioned
(+ every time you’d need to instantiate a new view).
--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
Am 18. November 2016 um 09:55:00, Haravikk (swift-evolution@haravikk.me)
schrieb:
Could this be addressed by allowing generic constraints on subscripts?
For example, with methods we can currently do:
struct Foo {
var values:[Any] =
func get<T>(at:Int) -> T? {
return values.indices.contains(at) ? values[at] as? T : nil
}
func get<T>(at:Int, as theType:T.Type) -> T? {
return values.indices.contains(at) ? values[at] as? T : nil
}
mutating func set<T>(at:Int, to:T) {
if values.indices.contains(at) { values[at] = to }
}
}
let foo = Foo(values: [1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 1, 2, 3])
let a = foo.get(at: 0, as: Double.self)
let b:Double = foo.get(at: 1)!
let c:Int? = foo.get(at: 2)
let d = foo.get(at: 3, as: Double.self)
let e:Int = foo.get(at: 4)!
let f = foo.get(at: 5, as: Int.self)
i.e- the type is inferred from the call-site either with an explicit
variable type, or by passing in the expected type as the second argument,
which I think is a pretty neat way to do it.
If we could do the same with subscripts we could do something like:
struct Foo {
var values:[Any] =
subscript<T>(_ at:Int) -> T? {
get { return values.indices.contains(at) ? values[at] as? T : nil }
set { if values.indices.contains(at) { values[at] = newValue } }
}
subscript<T>(_ at:Int, as theType:T.Type) -> T? {
return values.indices.contains(at) ? values[at] as? T : nil
}
}
let foo = Foo(values: [1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 1, 2, 3])
let a = foo[0, as: Double.self]
let b:Double = foo[1]!
let c:Int? = foo[2]
let d = foo[3, as: Double.self]
let e:Int = foo[4]!
let f = foo[5, as: Int.self]
Are generic constraints on subscripts part of the generics manifesto?
On 17 Nov 2016, at 20:14, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Dear Swift community,
while building a framework for BSON I had the following idea.
Here is a snippet of some code I do have in my module:
extension Array where Element == Document.Value {
public func double(at index: Int) -> Double? {
guard self.startIndex <= index && index < self.endIndex else { return nil }
if case .double(let double) = self[index] {
return double
}
return nil
}
…
}
This function is used to query the array and check if the element at the
given index is of a specific type. Now I would like also to implement a
semi-schema setter.
The problem that I see, is the ugliness of the subscript I’d create.
Currently the code would read nicely let d = array.double(at: 42), but
after change to a subscript the API would look odd array[doubleAt: 42] =
5.0.
Don’t get me wrong here, I also have methods with larger names like public
func scopedJavaScript(at index: Int) -> …. You can easily imagine that
such subscripts would look ugly array[scopedJavaScriptAt: 123] = ….
I propose to align the design of subscript with functions where one could
optionally give subscript a name.
func name(label parameter: Type) -> ReturnType
subscript optionalName(label parameter: Type) -> ReturnType
This change would make my API nice and clean. array.scopedJavaScript[at:
213] = …
This also might be the opportunity to rethink the labeling rule on
subscripts, but this shall not be the main focus of this pitch.
--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
_______________________________________________
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