> On Jul 29, 2017, at 1:32 PM, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 29, 2017, at 4:24 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-dev >> <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote: >> >> On Jul 28, 2017, at 2:20 PM, Joe Groff via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> Overall, my intuition is that the tradeoffs come out in favor for nonunique >>> metadata objects, but what do you all think? Is there anything I'm missing? >> >> I think your proposal makes sense, particularly when we start caring about >> metadata/conformances for non-nominal types, which don’t have a declaration >> location. They are a bit over the horizon right now, but we need to support >> making tuples conform to protocols someday. Eliminating the requirement for >> them to be uniquely emitted across the entire program would make that much >> simpler, because otherwise you’re in the land of weak symbols or something. > > Not really, because the conformance is presumably still declared somewhere in > Swift and therefore has a natural unique definition point even if the type > doesn’t.
Ok, so you’re suggesting that the stdlib would have the “automatically provided” conditional conformances for things like equatable, then each module that actually uses one gets a specialization? -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
