I didn’t mean to emphasize any specific syntax. I’m fine with either @const,
@constexpr, @pure or =>.
Anyway, I see no reason why generic functions shouldn’t be supported in any
of the suggested models.
2017-02-17 19:08 GMT+03:00 Abe Schneider <abe.schnei...@gmail.com>:
+1. I think this is a great idea. As I was following this thread, I
> was wondering if someone might suggest the C++ constexpr syntax.
>
> Would this support generics? E.g. could you do:
>
> @constepxr
> func foo<S>(a:S, b:S) {
> return a+b
> }
>
> and have that be done at compile time? While this could potentially
> add a huge amount of complication on the backend, I could this as
> being useful (also related to my previous postings as to having a way
> of determining generic types at compile time).
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
