What’s up with this great idea? Can’t see a proposal on swift-evolution anywhere.
> On 08 Apr 2016, at 08:15, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > >> On Apr 6, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Developer via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> If you've ever gotten to the point where you have a sufficiently generic >> interface to a thing and you need to constrain it, possibly in an extension, >> maybe for a generic free function or operator, you know what a pain the >> syntax can be for these kinds of operations. For example, the Swift book >> implements this example to motivate where clauses >> >> func anyCommonElements <T: SequenceType, U: SequenceType where >> T.Generator.Element: Equatable, T.Generator.Element == U.Generator.Element> >> (lhs: T, _ rhs: U) -> Bool >> >> This is noisy and uncomfortable to my eyes, and almost impossible to align >> correctly. Per a short discussion on Twitter with Joe Groff and Erica >> Sadun, I'd like so see what the community feels about moving the where >> clause out of the angle brackets. So that example becomes >> >> func anyCommonElements <T: SequenceType, U: SequenceType> >> where T.Generator.Element: Equatable, T.Generator.Element == >> U.Generator.Element >> (lhs: T, _ rhs: U) -> Bool >> >> Or, if you're feeling ambitious, even >> >> func anyCommonElements <T, U> >> where T : SequenceType, U : SequenceType, >> T.Generator.Element: Equatable, T.Generator.Element == U.Generator.Element >> (lhs: T, _ rhs: U) -> Bool >> >> Thoughts? > > +1, long overdue. Please keep basic constraints (ones expressible without a > ‘where’ clause, like simple conformances) inline though. > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
