> On Nov 16, 2017, at 4:38 PM, Howard Lovatt <howard.lov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When the user writes:
>
> let increment: <T>(T) throws -> T where T: Numeric = { $0 + 1 }
> increment(1) // 2
> increment(1.1) // 2.1
This means that ‘increment’ is a *value* with a generic function type.
Presumably you want to pass generic closures as function parameters and results
too. This is called higher-rank polymorphism and it introduces considerable
complexity in type checking and code generation.
> Compiler issues global struct as above. Then:
>
> let _int_increment = _Function1__T1__T1__T1__E__Numeric<Int>({ $0 + 1 })
> try _int_increment.call(1) // 2
> let _double_increment = _Function1__T1__T1__T1__E__Numeric<Double>({ $0 +
> 1 })
> try _double_increment.call(1.1) // 2.1
What if I do,
let array = [increment]
What is the type of ‘array’?
Slava
>
> The more restrictive form that you suggest (I think this is what you mean
> anyway) of only allowed locally, not globally, is easier to name mangle, you
> just need a unique name, nothing about the name needs to be canonical. This
> would be similar to local functions at present and would be useful (though I
> am not sure how many local *generic* functions there are).
>
>
> -- Howard.
>
> On 17 November 2017 at 10:47, Slava Pestov <spes...@apple.com
> <mailto:spes...@apple.com>> wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 16, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Where I am proposing a change is that if a closure with generic arguments is
>> encountered it is transformed into the equivalent struct and the struct is
>> typed as it currently is (or if there is a better implementation something
>> equivalent to this), therefore zero change to the type system.
>
> Since we already have local functions that can capture values and be generic,
> there’s no need to implement a new mechanism for name mangling or handling of
> captures.
>
>>
>> The changes proposed are a transformation into a struct and name mangling,
>> e.g.:
>>
>> let increment: <T>(T) throws -> T where T: Numeric = { $0 + 1 }
>> let increment = { <T>(n: T) throws -> T where T: Numeric in n + 1 }
>> let increment: <T>(T) throws -> T where T: Numeric = { <T>(n: T) throws
>> -> T where T: Numeric in n + 1 }
>
> It sounds like what you’re proposing is essentially a new surface syntax for
> local functions — since a generic closure would not be a first class value,
> it could not appear anywhere except for the right hand side of a let binding,
> right?
>
> Slava
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
