> On 08 Jan 2018, at 21:02, Nate Cook via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I created a playground to explore this question, starting with a minimal
> subset of the proposal’s additions and building from there. The attached
> playground demonstrates what’s possible with this subset on the first page,
> then uses subsequent pages to explore how the main random facilities of the
> C++ STL work under this model. (In my opinion, they work pretty well!)
>
> The subset in the playground has three main differences from the proposal:
> - It doesn't include a Randomizable protocol or a random property on numeric
> types.
> - It doesn't include the static random(in:) methods on numeric types, either.
> - The RandomNumberGenerator protocol doesn't have an associated type.
> Instead, it requires all conforming types to produce UInt64 values.
>
> I’ve tried to include a bit of real-world usage in the playground to
> demonstrate what writing code would look like with these additions. Please
> take a look!
>
> Nate
+1 to this design
Just my 2 cents but this looks very simple and easy to use due to being very
consistent. I also like that Randomizable was dropped as I feel it doesn’t hold
its weight.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
