> On 22 Nov 2017, at 07:41, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 21, 2017, at 10:37 PM, Chris Lattner <clatt...@nondot.org> wrote: >> >> On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgre...@apple.com> wrote: >>>> Or alternatively, one could decide to make the generics system *only and >>>> forever* work on nominal types, and make the syntactic sugar just be sugar >>>> for named types like Swift.Tuple, Function, and Optional. Either design >>>> could work. >>> >>> We don’t have a way to make it work for function types, though, because of >>> parameter-passing conventions. Well, assuming we don’t invent something >>> that allows: >>> >>> Function<Double, inout String> >>> >>> to exist in the type system. Tuple labels have a similar problem. >> >> I’m totally aware of that and mentioned it upthread. > > Eh, sorry I missed it. > >> There are various encoding tricks that could make this work depending on >> how you want to stretch the current generics system… > > I think it’s straightforward and less ugly to make structural types allow > extensions and protocol conformances.
Can somebody explain to me what is less ugly about that? I would have naturally thought that the language would be simpler as a whole if there only existed nominal types and all structural types were just sugar over them. > - Doug > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
