The third review of SE-0270: Add Collection Operations on Noncontiguous Elements begins now and runs through January 28th, 2020. The first review was here, and the second is here.
I want to apologize for the murky status of the proposal over the past month. The review period ended on December 19th, but clearly the conversation has continued, and attentive readers will have picked up on the fact that revisions were apparently being planned.
The Core Team has received a lot of great feedback on this proposal. A substantial amount of that feedback came after the review period was technically over, and it came largely in the form of a series of counter-proposals. The goal of proposal review is to guide the decision-making process in a way that hopefully leads to the best result, not to reach a formal yes/no decision on a specific proposal. While the Core Team wants the review process to be respectful of the author's time, and while we understand that many counter-proposals are fairly insubstantial, we also feel it is important to treat well-thought-out counterproposals seriously: the evolution process is not meant to be a "first to propose, wins" process. We have therefore been allowing these conversations to play out naturally, but the result is perhaps slightly unclear. Let me try to clarify it now.
There has been quite a lot of discussion about nearly every aspect of this proposal, from names down to its deepest structure. In consideration of this feedback, the proposal author has elected to revise the proposal to change a few names and to remove some of the more debatable aspects, leaving them for future consideration. You can see a full difference of the changes here. If you are interested, you may also find it valuable to read some of Dave Abrahams' counter-proposals and the ensuing discussion in the previous review thread; I believe Dave considers some but not all of those counter-proposals to still apply to this revision.
As before, the Core Team has elected not to partially accept any aspects of the proposal; this is again a de novo review. I will be trying to collate feedback from both this and the previous (second) round of review, so if you feel that you have nothing more to say about this proposal, please feel free to ignore this re-review.
Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All review feedback should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to me as the review manager via email or direct message on the forums. If you send me email, please put "SE-0270" somewhere in the subject line.
What goes into a review of a proposal?
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Swift.
When reviewing a proposal, here are some questions to consider:
- What is your evaluation of the proposal?
- Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
- Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
- If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
- How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
As always, thank you for contributing to Swift.