> On May 31, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Austin Zheng <austinzh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (inline) > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com > <mailto:matt...@anandabits.com>> wrote: > >> On May 31, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Austin Zheng <austinzh...@gmail.com >> <mailto:austinzh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I have a proposal for #6 in the pipe, but there are actually some subtleties >> I have to work out (it's not as simple as just slapping a generic type >> signature on a let constant). > > Cool. Looking forward to reviewing a draft when it’s ready. > >> >> I think #5 is just considered a 'bug' and doesn't need a proposal (it might >> actually be finished already; I saw some commits recently); same with #4. #7 >> is not very useful without variadic generics (it pretty much exists to allow >> tuples to conform to protocols, and tuples are inherently variadic). >> > > Good to know 4 and 5 are considered bugs. I know #4 is important for the > standard library so I suppose that will ensure it is a priority soon enough. > > I included #7 because it would still be nice to have for a number of reasons. > Maybe there is a way to pull it off for a handful of types that are known to > the compiler. > >> I wanted to take a stab at #2. > > Are you still thinking about this one or did you decide not to pursue it? > > I think I'd like to try writing something up. > > >> The core team has talked so much about #1 that I'd be surprised if they >> don't already have an idea as to how they want to do it, plus it's >> complicated for a number of reasons to get right. In such a case having the >> community push forward an alternate proposal would just be giving everyone >> more unneeded work. > > Agree here as well. I’ve avoided generics proposals mostly because I thought > the core team was leading the charge on all them. It now appears like that > may not have been the right assumption across the board. I wish we had a bit > more visibility on this... > > Yes, same. I'm going off this bullet point at the beginning of the generics > manifesto: > > "I hope to achieve several things: ... Engage more of the community in > discussions of specific generics features, so we can coalesce around designs > for public review. And maybe even get some of them implemented." > > >> >> #3 seems semantically straightforward. AFAIK there's nothing a subscript can >> do that a getter and setter method can't do together, and methods can >> already be generic. A proposal shouldn't be hard to put together. > > Agree. Someone just needs to jump in and write it up. :-) If it had a > chance of making it into Swift 3 I would do it right away, but it’s hard to > tell... > > I'd be happy to write up a proposal, especially if it's as straightforward as > it seems.
Cool! I’ll continue to play the role of providing as much feedback as I can… :-)
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
