`firstIndex` is completely unambiguous, whereas with `index` people might wonder which index is returned. Also, if `lastIndex` methods ever get added to the standard library, they will be a lot more consistent with `firstIndex` than with `index`.
On the other hand, `index` is short and simple, and people might not care whether it is the first index that matches or a different one. Still I think `firstIndex` is more in line with the naming guidelines.
Thoughts?
Working on it! https://github.com/brentdax/swift-evolution/blob/09be1007c5138be2370f33d761b05b8b6700a9a3/proposals/NNNN-sequence-end-ops.md
On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:58 AM, Tim Vermeulen via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
`firstIndex` is completely unambiguous, whereas with `index` people might wonder which index is returned. Also, if `lastIndex` methods ever get added to the standard library, they will be a lot more consistent with `firstIndex` than with `index`.
On the other hand, `index` is short and simple, and people might not care whether it is the first index that matches or a different one. Still I think `firstIndex` is more in line with the naming guidelines.
Thoughts?
--
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies
Is your proposal going to make the swift3 window?
On Jul 24, 2016, at 8:23 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:58 AM, Tim Vermeulen via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
`firstIndex` is completely unambiguous, whereas with `index` people might wonder which index is returned. Also, if `lastIndex` methods ever get added to the standard library, they will be a lot more consistent with `firstIndex` than with `index`.
On the other hand, `index` is short and simple, and people might not care whether it is the first index that matches or a different one. Still I think `firstIndex` is more in line with the naming guidelines.
Thoughts?
Working on it! https://github.com/brentdax/swift-evolution/blob/09be1007c5138be2370f33d761b05b8b6700a9a3/proposals/NNNN-sequence-end-ops.md
--
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
Jose Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@...> writes:
Is your proposal going to make the swift3 window?
It should. I'm planning on merging it and launching the review
if Chris L doesn't beat me to it (which I hope he will ;-)).
--
Dave
I’m still waiting to be told that it is ready. You guys appear to still be iterating in the PR.
-Chris
On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Jose Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@...> writes:
Is your proposal going to make the swift3 window?
It should. I'm planning on merging it and launching the review
if Chris L doesn't beat me to it (which I hope he will ;-)).
Great! A +1 from me for that proposal then :)
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:58 AM, Tim Vermeulen via swift-evolution<swift-evolution@swift.org>wrote:
>
> `firstIndex` is completely unambiguous, whereas with `index` people might wonder which index is returned. Also, if `lastIndex` methods ever get added to the standard library, they will be a lot more consistent with `firstIndex` than with `index`.
>
> On the other hand, `index` is short and simple, and people might not care whether it is the first index that matches or a different one. Still I think `firstIndex` is more in line with the naming guidelines.
>
> Thoughts?
Working on it! https://github.com/brentdax/swift-evolution/blob/09be1007c5138be2370f33d761b05b8b6700a9a3/proposals/NNNN-sequence-end-ops.md--
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies
The latest comment from Brent on the PR indicated that it's ready, I
believe.
Jacob
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Jose Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@...> writes:
>
>>
>> Is your proposal going to make the swift3 window?
>
> It should. I'm planning on merging it and launching the review
> if Chris L doesn't beat me to it (which I hope he will ;-)).I’m still waiting to be told that it is ready. You guys appear to still
be iterating in the PR.-Chris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
I consider it ready.
On Jul 24, 2016, at 10:39 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Jose Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@...> writes:
Is your proposal going to make the swift3 window?
It should. I'm planning on merging it and launching the review
if Chris L doesn't beat me to it (which I hope he will ;-)).I’m still waiting to be told that it is ready. You guys appear to still be iterating in the PR.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
--
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies
Me 2
on Sun Jul 24 2016, Brent Royal-Gordon <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
On Jul 24, 2016, at 10:39 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
On Jul 24, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Jose Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@...> writes:
Is your proposal going to make the swift3 window?
It should. I'm planning on merging it and launching the review
if Chris L doesn't beat me to it (which I hope he will ;-)).I’m still waiting to be told that it is ready. You guys appear to still be iterating in the PR.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolutionI consider it ready.