> On Jul 19, 2017, at 20:33, Taylor Swift via swift-users
> wrote:
>
> Many APIs like OpenGL take arrays where the atomic unit is multiple elements
> long. For example, a buffer of coordinates laid out like
>
> :[Float] = [ x1, y1, z1, x2, y2, z2, ... , xn, yn, zn ]
>
> I want to be able to
Many APIs like OpenGL take arrays where the atomic unit is multiple
elements long. For example, a buffer of coordinates laid out like
:[Float] = [ x1, y1, z1, x2, y2, z2, ... , xn, yn, zn ]
I want to be able to define *in Swift* (i.e., without creating and
importing a Objective C module) a struct
Hi,
I'm doing a lot of audio buffering stuff to learn real time audio synthesis and
generation, and find the NSSpeechSynthesizer class to be a bit lacking on OSX
compared to IOS. Principally frustrated with not knowing where I can capture
the synthesized buffer before it goes into the output. D
You are hardly alone struggling with this, it seems to come up every other
week!
You can write your own custom AnyProtocol type that includes Self, a pain
but doable, e.g.:
protocol A {
func a() -> String
}
protocol B {
func b() -> String
}
struct AB1: A, B, Hashable {
func a() -> Str
> On Jul 18, 2017, at 18:17, Zhao Xin via swift-users
> wrote:
>
> I encounter this error today. "matching a protocol value in multiple patterns
> is not yet supported; use separate cases instead"
>
> Sample code:
>
> import Foundation
>
> protocol NameProtocol {
> var name:String { get
> On 19 Jul 2017, at 09:22, Glen Huang via swift-users
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the heads up.
>
> I wonder what’s the root cause of the difficulty to make "such an existential
> conform to Hashable in a general way”. Is it because objects of different
> types have local definitions for hash v
> On 19 Jul 2017, at 09:22, Glen Huang via swift-users
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the heads up.
>
> I wonder what’s the root cause of the difficulty to make "such an existential
> conform to Hashable in a general way”. Is it because objects of different
> types have local definitions for hash v
Thanks for the heads up.
I wonder what’s the root cause of the difficulty to make "such an existential
conform to Hashable in a general way”. Is it because objects of different types
have local definitions for hash value, thus making it impossible to compare
them directly?
Go is able to handle
