> I’m not saying that tuple member names are “true integers” (although, with > Reflection…). I understood that, semantically, the reason we refer to > elements .0, .1 and .2 of a tuple because that’s their name, not necessarily > because its their position in the tuple. My point is that for a fixed-size > array like a [3; Double] vector, because you know what to expect at each > location, those indices are *both* ordinal *and* nominal. Subscripting [0] or > [1] from that FSA has the same conceptual meaning as accessing .x or .y on an > equivalent struct. What I’m trying to say is: for a FSA, the index *is* the > member name, just like the declaration-order number is for tuples. I think one important aspect of an array is that the slots don't have a name at all...
> I think the difference is that, for a fixed-size Array, the absolute > positions also generally have external meaning which is known to the > programmer but not reflected in the type-system. For example, that a [3; > Double] vector is supposed to be interpreted as (x, y, z) components, in that > order. > > We can do better than to expose a 3-element vector as a list of 3 unlabelled > values. Or even a n-dimensional matrix just as a series of numbers. I don't think we can — because a matrix is nothing but a bunch of numbers. How would you name the elements in 600 × 2000 matrix? Shorthands like x, y, z are only used in a very restricted environment that has little to do with real math. > A better system may require meta-programming features we don’t support yet, > and that’s fine, but I would really like us to focus on the actual use-cases > of FSAs and to consider ways of making those great, rather than checking off > a feature that we have to have ‘just because’. As I said: I don't think there is a better system, but what features should that be? > I remember that in the first Swift beta, you were allowed to mutate a “let” > Array as long as you didn’t change its length. The community didn’t like it > and things moved to COW instead. … and it made a lot of sense, because "can't be resized" is not a very useful feature when you can't reason about the size, and "can't be modified at all" helps a lot. Fixed-size arrays are completely different when they expose their size to the type checker.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
