on Tue Jun 28 2016, Chris Lattner <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:25 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> That’s the general concern I have as well: how much boilerplate does >> this add? In many cases, we get some of the associated type >> witnesses for Collection types for free, and I don’t know to what >> extent we can emulate that with defaulted associated type >> requirements and typealiases in protocol extensions. >> >> That said, I’ll take some minor regressions in this area for the >> massive simplification that this proposal brings. > > Another point to add to Doug’s great summary: instead of keeping it, > it is better in many ways to remove this feature in Swift 3, improve > the generics model throughout Swift 4 cycle, and then consider adding > inference back when we know more. > > The benefits of adding it back will be even more clear in the future, > and the implementation cost will also be more knowable as the rest of > the generics system is baked out. I guess we're on the same page then: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/22112 -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution