> On Nov 13, 2017, at 11:40 AM, John McCall via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org>
> wrote:
>
> - I feel like we're not boxing ourselves in too much to assume a layout of
> the generic requirements. Having a base offset already imposes a pretty
> steep compatibility requirement — e.g. even if we significantly generalized a
> type's generic signature, we would still need to store old requirements (when
> actually obeyed) in the appropriate places for the old signature, or else the
> old pattern just doesn't work at all. As long as we can extend that with
> more information later, we don't really suffer from making layout assumptions
> today.
Do you mean if we significantly generalized the schema for generic
requirements, or if we changed the definition of a single type to be more
general? I would rather the latter did not happen.
Accessing generic arguments efficiently is important for extension methods, I
think. In fact right now even thin functions recover metadata from a thick
metatype argument if its the last parameter, although perhaps this is not
intentional.
Slava
_______________________________________________
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
