> On Jul 6, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> On 06.07.2016 3:57, Jens Persson via swift-evolution wrote:
>> Please feel free to ignore this naive attempt to engage in this discussion.
>>
>> My understanding of the history of Swift's tuples, argument lists, pattern
>> matching, associated values, etc. in two steps:
>>
>> 1. Initial Idealism *:
>> Simple powerful heavily reused general concept.
>>
>> 2. Iterative pragmatism / reality *:
>> Complicated (exceptions to) rules.
>>
>> (* Inevitably not taking everything in to account.)
>>
>> Has there been any recent attempts to outline a more or less complete
>> redesign for these things, returning to step 1 so to speak, but taking into
>> account what has now been learned?
>>
>>
>> As a side note (and supposedly trivial to most but me):
>>
>> Parentheses (parenthesized expressions in the grammar?) are used for all of
>> these parts of the language, and they probably should be, but perhaps the
>> similarities and differences between the language constructs can be made
>> clearer to see by pretending that argument and parameter lists are written
>> with eg ≪≫ and tuples with eg ⊂⊃, etc.?
>>
>> For example, I think most people agree that we should be able to use
>> "sloppy/forgiving" parenthetical grouping in code such as:
>> ((1 + (2 * 3)) * (x + (-5))) - y
>> This is fine and can be used to express meaning for the person
>> reading/writing, even though it means that some of the parens can become
>> superfluous to a machine interpretation.
>>
>> AFAICS this need not have anything to do with tuples and/or parameter
>> lists, but the fact that Swift is treating eg:
>> func foo(x: ((((Int))))) { print(x) }
>> as
>> func foo(x: Int) { print(x) }
>> and
>> ((Int, Int))
>> as
>> (Int, Int)
>
> If SE-0110 will be accepted, ((Int, Int)) will mean "1 tuple with Int,Int
> fields" and (Int, Int) will mean only "list of two Ints in parameters"
((Int, Int)) would still be equivalent to (Int, Int). SE-0110 only concerns
parameter lists in function types.
-Joe
>
>> seems to suggest that it somehow does.
>>
>> Or maybe I have just forgotten the reasons for why there can be no such
>> thing as (a nested) single element tuple (type).
>>
>> I also can't remember what the pros & cons of disallowing labeled single
>> element tuples were.
>>
>> Happy to be corrected and pointed to relevant reading : )
>>
>> /Jens
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
