Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

I'm a +1 on the basis that I wasn't even aware of the first case, so have never used it! Although I've used clone methods and such in the past, I've always done so with the generics specified so never noticed that I could omit them, however I do frequently run into the unexpected case that this

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

I vote to incorporate it somehow into the “Universal Self ” proposal. – Adrian___ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

on Tue Oct 11 2016, Slava Pestov wrote: > I could if there’s interest. Since we intend on maintaining source > compatibility, it will not result in a simpler implementation, though, > since we’ll need to keep the old code path around for Swift 3 > mode. Still worth

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

Painful +1. I use the first one a whole lot in a project and it is going to get ugly. That said… I can see how it is tricky in a way that doesn't really pay off for most people. Removing the first feature might even be necessary for what I hope will ease the ugly. I don't see "Default generic

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

+1. I don't use this feature at all and (by extension) don't think there are many situations where it's useful. ~Robert Widmann 2016/10/11 18:03、Slava Pestov via swift-evolution のメッセージ: > I could if there’s interest. Since we intend on maintaining source >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

I could if there’s interest. Since we intend on maintaining source compatibility, it will not result in a simpler implementation, though, since we’ll need to keep the old code path around for Swift 3 mode. Still worth it? Slava > On Oct 11, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Pyry Jahkola

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

I was reminded of this proposal which seems like an obvious win in clarity. Still planning to submit it, Slava? — Pyry > On 28 Jun 2016, at 21:13, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > wrote: > > on Thu Jun 23 2016, Slava Pestov wrote: >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

on Thu Jun 23 2016, Slava Pestov wrote: > Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no > arguments > > Proposal: SE- > >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > Good to know. I absolutely agree that the gains to be had here wouldn't be > worth a one-off hack. If people are strongly (or even mildly) opposed to removing this rule, we can give some thought to a more general

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Slava Pestov wrote: > > >> On Jun 23, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> When you mention the difficulty of an alternative, is that to say that it's >> not feasible for the

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > When you mention the difficulty of an alternative, is that to say that it's > not feasible for the GenericBox in the last example to be resolved as > GenericBox? From an end-user point of view, that seems to be the most

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Simpler interpretation of a reference to a generic type with no arguments

When you mention the difficulty of an alternative, is that to say that it's not feasible for the GenericBox in the last example to be resolved as GenericBox? From an end-user point of view, that seems to be the most sensible behavior. On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 15:14 Slava Pestov via swift-evolution