> On 5 Oct 2017, at 20:23, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 10:58, Nate Cook via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> The edge case is really the same (empty ranges), it’s about what we do with
>> the edge case. If we include the methods on integer types, usage will look
>> like this:
>>
>> let x = Int.random(in: 0..<5) // 3
>> let y = Int.random(in: 0..<0) // runtime error
>>
>
> These examples are a bit misleading, because they use literals. Sometimes
> they will, sure, but in practice, many use cases would define Int.random(in:
> 0..<array.count) or similar, which has just the same pitfalls as
> array.random().
>
> p.s. ideally Int.random(in: 0..<0) would be a compile time error...
>
>> If we only have the collection methods, usage will look like this:
>>
>> let x = (0..<5).random()! // 3
>> let y = (0..<0).random()! // runtime error
>>
>
> I don’t know if it’s a given that we must make randomElement optional. I’m on
> the fence as to whether it should be optional vs trap on empty.
I vote for making them optional because doing otherwise would be inconsistent
with first and last, no?
> Another option is to shadow randomElement on closed range to be non-optional.
>
>> But my suspicion is that lots of people will write things like this:
>>
>> guard let x = (0..<5).random()
>> else { fatalError("not gonna happen") }
>>
>> I’d rather have the numeric methods trap than add the optional unwrapping
>> step to every one of these calls. For me, getting a random number and
>> picking a random element of a collection are two different operations—where
>> it’s common to work with empty collections, especially in generic code,
>> trying to get a random value from an empty range is really a programming
>> error. I think it’s okay for them to have slightly different semantics.
>>
>> Nate
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Alejandro Alonso <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rather 0 ..< 0 my bad. I think if we include closedcountable, then there
>>> needs to be support for countable, but there are edge cases where users can
>>> input invalid ranges for countable.
>>>
>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>>
>>> El oct. 5, 2017, a la(s) 12:22, Alejandro Alonso via swift-evolution
>>> <[email protected]> escribió:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Ben here because users can still enter an invalid range with
>>>> the static function. I.E. Int.random(in: 0 ... 0).
>>>> I would really prefer excluding these static functions from numeric types.
>>>>
>>>> - Alejandro
>>>>
>>>> El oct. 5, 2017, a la(s) 12:03, Nate Cook via swift-evolution
>>>> <[email protected]> escribió:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:12 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>>> extension Int {
>>>>>>>> static func random(in range: Countable{Closed}Range<Int>) -> Int
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice. Should these be initializers like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> extension Int {
>>>>>>> init(randomIn: Countable{Closed}Range<Int>)
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t see much of a case for making it it random(in:
>>>>>> SpecificCollection) instead of genericCollection.random().
>>>>>
>>>>> I see a couple points in favor of these static methods (or initializers)
>>>>> on the numeric types:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) The collection method will need to return an optional to match the
>>>>> semantics of existing methods (like min()). If this is the only method
>>>>> available, every time someone needs a random value in the range 1...10,
>>>>> they’ll need to unwrap the result (with either force unwrapping, which
>>>>> people will complain about, or some kind of conditional binding, which is
>>>>> its own problem). Even if the semantics are the same (trapping on an
>>>>> empty range), the user experience of using a non-optional method will be
>>>>> better.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Floating-point ranges won’t get the collection method, so either we’ll
>>>>> have inconsistent APIs (random FP value is non-optional, random integer
>>>>> is optional) or we’ll make the FP API optional just to match. Both of
>>>>> those seem bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>> One possible reason is if you exclude half-open ranges, only having
>>>>>> CountableClosedRange, then you don’t have to account for the possibility
>>>>>> of an empty collection (via an optional or a trap) because they cannot
>>>>>> be empty. But closed ranges aren’t the currency type – half-open ranges
>>>>>> are. So it’d hit usability if you have to convert from one to t'other
>>>>>> often.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other possibility is discovery. But given the common use case is “random
>>>>>> element from collection”, I don’t expect this to be an issue as it will
>>>>>> quickly become common knowledge that this feature is available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed here—I don’t think discovery is really an issue between the two
>>>>> kinds. However, I don’t think the overlap in features (two ways to
>>>>> generate random integers) are a problem, especially as we’d have better
>>>>> alignment between integer and floating-point methods.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nate
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
