> On Aug 11, 2017, at 19:21, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 11, 2017, at 7:05 PM, David Zarzycki via swift-dev 
>> <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote:
>> Hi Slava,
>> 
>> Thanks. I’m not planning on seeking them out. I just want to minimize future 
>> merge conflicts with an experimental branch I’m working on. The visitor 
>> pattern helps people like me by minimizing the number of boilerplate updates 
>> a person needs to do after adding a new type to the type system.
> 
> Unless you’re splitting an existing type, most of the boilerplate updates are 
> intentional — we want people to think about every case when doing the update.

I understand. Rather than discuss this abstractly, let’s consider a concrete 
example: Type::transformRec() in lib/AST/Type.cpp seems like a clear candidate 
that could and should switch to the visitor pattern because both NominalType 
and ReferenceStorageType are being handled abstractly. To what extent to you 
agree or disagree?

Dave
_______________________________________________
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev

Reply via email to