> On Aug 12, 2017, at 6:45 AM, David Zarzycki <zarzy...@icloud.com> wrote:
>> 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?

I agree.

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

Reply via email to