> On Aug 12, 2017, at 6:45 AM, David Zarzycki <zarzy...@icloud.com> wrote: >> On Aug 11, 2017, at 19:21, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 7:05 PM, David Zarzycki via swift-dev >>> <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote: >>> Hi Slava, >>> >>> Thanks. I’m not planning on seeking them out. I just want to minimize >>> future merge conflicts with an experimental branch I’m working on. The >>> visitor pattern helps people like me by minimizing the number of >>> boilerplate updates a person needs to do after adding a new type to the >>> type system. >> >> Unless you’re splitting an existing type, most of the boilerplate updates >> are intentional — we want people to think about every case when doing the >> update. > > I understand. Rather than discuss this abstractly, let’s consider a concrete > example: Type::transformRec() in lib/AST/Type.cpp seems like a clear > candidate that could and should switch to the visitor pattern because both > NominalType and ReferenceStorageType are being handled abstractly. To what > extent to you agree or disagree?
I agree. John. _______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
