Ok, I understand, thanks! On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 9:29 PM, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Jens Persson <j...@bitcycle.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:52 PM, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> >> We really do want to tie most of these features specifically to function >> calls. >> > > > I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Do you mean that you really > don't want these features to require changes to the type system? > > > That's correct. There's a lot of special structure to function calls — > labels, overloading, default arguments, variadics, inout arguments, > (eventually) borrowed arguments — that we do not want to introduce into the > first-class tuple system, or at least not in the exact same way. In some > cases, like overloading or defaulted and inout arguments, it cannot be done > without a major and unwanted model shift. In other cases, like variadics, > it could theoretically be done but would complicate the type system in ways > we are trying to avoid. > > Regardless, the existence of any call-specific structure at all implies > that generic value forwarding cannot always be sufficient to do generic > argument forwarding. Maybe that's an argument for not having any > call-specific structure, but we do have that and it's not going away. > > John. >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution