> On Jan 27, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Karl Wagner <razie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 27 Jan 2017, at 22:25, Slava Pestov <spes...@apple.com >> <mailto:spes...@apple.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 27, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> >>> So, 2 quick points: >>> >>> 1) I have often wanted a shorthand for expressing long tuples; I definitely >>> think that’s something worth bike-shedding, e.g. - (String * 4, Int32 * 4) >>> or something >> >> Why not define a struct, or a tuple consisting of two arrays? > > Because I want a fixed-length guarantee; ([String], [Int]) could have any > number of Strings or Ints.
Ok, maybe a struct would named fields would be better though. > It’s just a shorthand for defining long or complex tuples; we currently > import C arrays as massive tuples which can be basically impossible to read. I agree that this is a problem — fixed length arrays should be imported better, once we have the right language features. > >> >>> 2) Having a special non-growing array type which is called “array” and >>> separate from Array<T> is not such a good idea IMO. I would rather allow >>> tuples to conform to protocols (see: >>> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/GenericsManifesto.md#extensions-of-structural-types >>> >>> <https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/GenericsManifesto.md#extensions-of-structural-types>). >>> >>> If tuples could conform to protocols, we could say “any tuple of homogenous >>> elements is a Collection”. There would be benefits for the standard >>> library, too - EmptyCollection<T> would disappear, replaced with the empty >>> tuple (), >> >> This sounds too clever. > > Yeah… the cleverness is one of things I like about it. We get to remove these > canned conformances and reduce the stdlib surface area while gaining an > efficient way to express a fixed-size Collection. It would come with all > kinds of supplementary benefits, such as iterating and mapping the elements > of a tuple. > >> >>> as would CollectionOfOne<T>, to be replaced by a single-element tuple (T). >> >> For what it’s worth, Swift doesn’t have single-element tuples. (T) is just >> sugar for the type T itself. > > Would it be unreasonable to separate those, so that (T) is separate from T > instead of being a synonym for it? There is some awkwardness with tuples due > to legacy designs. Perhaps this would help clean it up a little (or perhaps > make it worse, who knows?) > > For source compatibility, we could allow an implicit conversion; in the same > way that a T can be implicitly “promoted" to an Optional<T>, it could be > implicitly “promoted” to a single-element tuple of T (and vice-versa). Sure, we *could* re-design tuple types in a way where single element tuples make sense. Then we’d have to come up with a source compatibility story for Swift 3 vs Swift 4, fix any fallout (compiler crashes) from this change, implement migrator support when the stdlib is changed to use the new features, etc. But think of it this way — every such “unnecessary” change (and I realize this is subjective!) is taking away cycles the team could use to fix crashes, improve compiler speed, and improve diagnostics. Not to mention implementing the other evolution proposals which arguably increase expressive power in important ways we feel we need for ABI stability, such as generic subscripts. > >> >>> We would also be able to remove our limited-arity == overloads in favour of >>> actual, honest-to-goodness Equatable conformance. >> >> I like this idea though. >> >>> >>> - Karl >>> >>> <https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/GenericsManifesto.md#extensions-of-structural-types>_______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >> >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
