> On Jun 12, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Jens Persson via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Michael Ilseman <milse...@apple.com > <mailto:milse...@apple.com>> wrote: > > * Unless you’re proposing a change to the semantics of the language that > could affect e.g. name mangling or the type metadata hierarchy, then that > would be ABI-affecting. For example, proposing that all functions must only > take a single tuple rather than multiple arguments could affect the runtime > representation of function types. But even then, there are approaches to > mitigate this, so such a proposal would likely present an ABI migration > strategy. > > > I think I understand (and understood), in very basic terms, the difference > between source stability and binary stability, and I was thinking something > like this: > > What if there is a chance that the "uniform tuple concept" could be > redesigned and reimplemented after all, handling inout, variadic, etc in some > way, allowing named single element tuples, allowing A -> B to represent > (possibly only "pure") functions with _any_number_ of args, and not just one, > as in Swift 4, and so on.
We really do want to tie most of these features specifically to function calls. John. > > I'm still not entirely sure if this is ABI-affecting or not. But anyway, > thank you for your calming words! > > (I will try to not worry that (almost) everything parentheses-related in > Swift will forever be stuck in a local optimum, because its current state and > the history that lead to it is so confusing that it will stop all attempts at > a substantially better solution and only allow minor changes/polishing.) > > /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
