> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:05 PM, Karl Wagner <razie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 12 Jan 2017, at 22:37, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, I've got a draft up as a gist:
>>> https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/6c681677d44903045587bf75fb17eb25
>>> <https://gist.github.com/chriseidhof/6c681677d44903045587bf75fb17eb25>
>>>
>>> Before I submit it, could someone let me know if adding generics to
>>> subscripts would influence the ABI? ( still feel pretty clueless in that
>>> area).
>>
>> It won’t change the ABI of existing subscript calls, but if the standard
>> library introduces new generic subscripts that replace older non-generic
>> subscripts, it will impact ABI.
>>
>> Slava
>
> Why are subscripts so different, anyway? One would think they are basically
> sugared functions, but they don’t support so many things that regular
> functions support. Not just syntax stuff, either - they also don’t support
> @inline(__always) for some reason…
Nice catch with @inline(__always). Please file a JIRA issue, since I’m actively
working on this stuff now.
Subscripts are a bit different from ordinary functions because they’re lvalues.
You can call mutating members on the result of a subscript, or chain it with
another property access or subscript. So the code path in SILGen is a little
different than ordinary function calls. This is the reason subscripts cannot
have default arguments also. With a bit of refactoring we can unify the code
path for forming call arguments in ordinary calls and subscripts, and hopefully
the default argument and generic cases will fall out naturally also.
>
> Where generic subscripts are concerned, there are a couple of different
> things to express:
> - Generic parameter (I can understand various co-ordinates for the data)
> - Generic return type (I can construct your preferred representation of the
> data)
> - Generic setter type (I can set the data using various compatible types):
I think all of these should be expressed with a single generic signature on the
subscript itself. The element type passed to the setter and returned from the
getter should be the same IMO, otherwise it’s not clear how it will work.
>
> protocol MeaningfulToFoo {}
> protocol ConstructableFromFoo {}
>
> struct Foo {
> subscript<Index>(index: Index) where Index: SignedInteger {
> get<T> where T: ConstructableFromFoo { return T(self) }
> set<U> where T: MeaningfulToFoo { self.someProperty =
> newValue.someData }
> }
> }
>
> The syntax looks a bit awkward, though, IMO. I’m wondering if it might be
> better to have some kind of combined subscript + property behaviours
> (remember those?) and allow those to be generic instead. Subscripts and
> properties are very similar anyway - they are both bundles of functions to
> represent getting and setting data (not just regular-old “get” and “set”,
> either, but also magic stuff like “mutableAddressWithPinnedNativeOwner”). The
> only difference is that property getters can’t have parameters — which is
> something I would also like to see lifted one day (I believe I’ve even seen
> people asking for “named subscripts” due to the lack of this =P)
>
> - Karl
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
