On 25 November 2017 at 23:39, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Mike Kluev wrote:
>
>> On 25 November 2017 at 23:07, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure what you’re asking. Equatable is a protocol.
>>>
>>
>> that's the point. i mean, if user writes this:
>>
>> extension (Equatabl
I second Xiaodi. The new names are much improved. Land them in 4.1 or as soon
as possible. Depreciations in 5 and removal in 6, though stability may not
allow removal.
> On Nov 2, 2017, at 9:58 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon
Yeah, I realized that wasn’t true after sending it—it could come from an
imported module, as long as it’s visible. Still, I imagine that retroactive
conformance wouldn’t be an issue because when the compiler type checks the
default at the declaration site, it would only see declarations that it
alr
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Mike Kluev wrote:
> On 25 November 2017 at 23:07, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
>> Not sure what you’re asking. Equatable is a protocol.
>>
>
> that's the point. i mean, if user writes this:
>
> extension (Equatable, Equatable) : Equatable
>
> what *else* could he mean othe
You’re right, I misunderstood that paragraph (maybe I read what I wanted to
read :D). Thank you very much for the clarification and I’ll take a closer look
at your proposal tomorrow!
- Dennis
Sent from my iPhone
> On 25. Nov 2017, at 10:37 PM, Adrian Zubarev
> wrote:
>
> Well no, this propo
on Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:01:16 +0100 David Hart
wrote:
>
> What confuses me is that I always thought that T? was sugar for
> Optional by design, and found that to be quite elegant.
ditto, i thought the same.
> But now you’re telling me that its just a hack to allow conformance on
> Option
On 25 November 2017 at 23:07, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
> Not sure what you’re asking. Equatable is a protocol.
>
that's the point. i mean, if user writes this:
extension (Equatable, Equatable) : Equatable
what *else* could he mean other than this:
extension (T, R) : Equatable
and if it is indeed th
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Tony Allevato
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 2:35 PM Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Tony Allevato
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>>>
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 15:06 Matthew Johnson
wrote:
>>>
On Nov 20, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I’ve significantly revised the ‘dynamic member lookup’ pitch, here’s the
> second edition:
> https://gist.github.com/lattner/b016e1cf86c43732c8d82f90e5ae5438
>
> I’ve incorporated some minor changes to it:
> - I’ve made it possibl
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 16:44 Mike Kluev wrote:
> On 25 November 2017 at 22:38, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Mike Kluev wrote:
>>
>>>
i haven't encounter this notation before so it looks strange and
>>> requires some effort to decipher. if it was e.g. in this form
This sort of “it compiles if it’s syntactically valid, regardless of declared
constraints” thing is deliberately avoided in Swift’s generics design with good
reason; it’s possible that in this instance there are no problems, but I’m
skeptical.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 25, 2017, at 1:16 PM
on Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 09:56:35 +1100 Howard Lovatt <
howard.lov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would defend turning tuples into structs (change from structural type to
> nominal type). This is a much better story for programmers, compare the two
> stories:
>
>1. Tuples are just syntax sugar fo
On 25 November 2017 at 22:38, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Mike Kluev wrote:
>
>>
>>> i haven't encounter this notation before so it looks strange and
>> requires some effort to decipher. if it was e.g. in this form:
>>
>> extension (Equatable...) : Equatable
>>
>> then it
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 2:35 PM Xiaodi Wu wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Tony Allevato
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 15:06 Matthew Johnson
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Nov 25, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Tony Allevato via swift-evoluti
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Mike Kluev wrote:
> On 25 November 2017 at 16:04, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
>>
>> The workaround substantially bloats the standard library, and the result
>> is nothing close to the same because your type is still not Equatable. This
>> means that it cannot benefit from
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Tony Allevato
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 15:06 Matthew Johnson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution <
>>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov
On 25 November 2017 at 16:04, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
> The workaround substantially bloats the standard library, and the result
> is nothing close to the same because your type is still not Equatable. This
> means that it cannot benefit from any generic algorithms. For example, an
> array of such tup
> On Nov 25, 2017, at 08:05, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 06:35 Mike Kluev wrote:
>>> On 25 November 2017 at 03:12, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>>
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Mike Kluev via swift-evolution
wrote:
>>>
> On 24 November 2017
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM Xiaodi Wu wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 15:06 Matthew Johnson
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 25, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:18 PM Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evol
Well no, this proposal won’t allow your example. The problem in your example
actually has different roots - *Metatypes*. As by today, meta types are somehow
broken, especially in generic / associated type context. Furthermore there is
currently no way to express that you may want a subtype for a
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 15:06 Matthew Johnson
wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:18 PM Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> It's kludgy, but we could have
I like Tony's idea. Maybe the default argument functions could even take
arguments
with earlier parameters from the parameter list.
-Thorsten
> Am 25.11.2017 um 20:28 schrieb Tony Allevato via swift-evolution
> :
>
>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:18 PM Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
>> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:18 PM Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's kludgy, but we could have something like:
>
> ```
> @defaultArgument(configuration = (), wher
> Am 24.11.2017 um 20:13 schrieb Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> :
>
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
>>> wrote:
>>> This proposed addition addresses a known pain point, to be sure, but I
>>> think it has
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:18 PM Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
It's kludgy, but we could have something like:
>
> ```
> @defaultArgument(configuration = (), where R.Configuration == Void)
> @defaultArgument(actionHandler = { _ in }, where R.Action == Never)
> fun
> 24 Nov. 2017 08:33 Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> 2) I’d like to explore the idea of making // syntax be *patterns* instead of
> simply literals. As a pattern, it should be possible to bind submatches
> directly into variable declarations, eliminating the need to count pare
On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 06:35 Mike Kluev wrote:
> On 25 November 2017 at 03:12, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Mike Kluev via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24 November 2017 at 23:47, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>>
e.g., making all
I would also love to have generic associated types in the language, I have a
lot of uses for them and, IIUC, supertype constraint would enable me to express
the following:
protocol Service {}
protocol WikiService: Service {} // methods not shown for conciseness
class DefaultWikiService: WikiSer
On 25 November 2017 at 03:12, Xiaodi Wu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Mike Kluev via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> On 24 November 2017 at 23:47, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> e.g., making all tuples of Equatable elements Equatable
>>>
>>>
>> that's alr
29 matches
Mail list logo
