on Mon Jun 27 2016, Austin Zheng <austinzheng-AT-gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your response, Dave. > > There is a bit of a dilemma here: wait until the generics and type system > features have stabilized at the risk of making major source-breaking > changes after 3.0, or make changes now without clarity about the future of > the generics system. > > Given that this topic showed up both in Chris's list of open design topics > and in the generics manifesto, I assume that someone on the core team > wanted a discussion about it before Swift 3 closes. I would be interested > in knowing if that's true.
I don't know anything more than you do, I'm afraid. > Best, > Austin > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> >> on Sat Jun 25 2016, Austin Zheng <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 25, 2016, at 6:23 AM, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Austin, >> >> >> >> I’m sorry to say, but this proposal makes me really sad. I consider >> >> associated type inference one of the more elegant aspects of Swift. >> >> It would be very unfortunate to lose it. >> > >> > There are lots of "elegant" things that Swift could do, but has chosen >> > not to do for pragmatic reasons (e.g. generalized implicit >> > conversions, type inference that crosses statement boundaries). Given >> > how terrible the development experience can be right now in the worst >> > case, I would happily trade off some measure of convenience for better >> > tooling. >> >> Well, the type checker's inference engine has *always* been kinda >> unreliable, and the experience is made much worse by the lack of >> recursive protocol requirements and the inability to express other >> constraints that would better guide inference, and by the “underscored >> protocols” such as _Indexable that are required to work around those >> limitations. IMO it's premature to remove this feature before the >> inference engine is made sane, the generics features are added, and the >> library is correspondingly cleaned up, because we don't really know what >> the user experience would be. >> >> Finally, I am very concerned that there are protocols such as Collection, >> with many inferrable associated types, and that conforming to these >> protocols could become *much* uglier. >> >> -- >> Dave >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> swift-evolution@swift.org >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution