on Fri May 12 2017, David Hart wrote:
>> On 12 May 2017, at 09:05, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> on Thu May 11 2017, David Hart wrote:
>>
>>> I have the impression this would be simple enough because it would only
>>> live in the parser. But
> I'm
>>> no expert.
>>
> On 12 May 2017, at 09:05, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>
> on Thu May 11 2017, David Hart wrote:
>
>> I have the impression this would be simple enough because it would only live
>> in the parser. But I'm
>> no expert.
>
> You would need some way to tell the compiler whic
on Thu May 11 2017, David Hart wrote:
> I have the impression this would be simple enough because it would only live
> in the parser. But I'm
> no expert.
You would need some way to tell the compiler which associated type goes
in the <>s.
--
-Dave
___
I have the impression this would be simple enough because it would only live in
the parser. But I'm no expert.
> On 12 May 2017, at 01:50, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Can anyone give me a rough estimate of how hard (in terms of coding, not in
> terms of Swift Evolution proces
Can anyone give me a rough estimate of how hard (in terms of coding, not in
terms of Swift Evolution process) it would be to adopt (1) `extension
Set` as an outright alias for `extension Set where Element ==
ShippingOptions` and (2) `extension [ShippingOptions]` for `extension Array
where Eleme
