> On Sep 13, 2017, at 1:06 PM, David Zarzycki via swift-dev > <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote: > > > >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 15:23, Matthew Johnson via swift-dev >> <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 11:56 AM, David Zarzycki via swift-dev >>> <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 13:53, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 09:54, David Zarzycki via swift-dev >>>>> <swift-dev@swift.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> As a part of a research project that I’m working on, I’ve started bumping >>>>> into the need for value-type bound protocols (as opposed to the existing >>>>> class bound protocols). Is this something that would be worth proposing >>>>> formally? Or should I just keep the patch I have on my research branch? >>>> >>>> I think it'd be worth a proposal, especially if can talk about why you >>>> needed it. >>> >>> While I look forward to talking about my research, I’m not ready to do in >>> the near future. >>> >>> That being said, value-type bound protocols seem independently useful and >>> that is why I emailed the list. >>> >>> I think the use case for this is generic algorithms. Why? Because it can be >>> hard to impossible to write *robust* generic code when you don’t know >>> whether an abstract type copies by value or by reference during >>> assignment/initialization. With class-bound protocols, you can guarantee >>> reference semantics, but there is no analogous feature for ensuring value >>> semantics. I have a small (~150 line) patch that fixes this. >> >> Value types and value semantics are not the same. Most people who have >> asked for this capability actually want a constraint for value semantics, >> not value types. Is that what you're asking for as well? > > The patch that I’m ready to put forth is only a value-type bound. In other > words only structs and enums would be able to conform to a value-type bound > protocol. Enforcing value semantics is arguably a separable language goal. >
But knowing something is a value type isn’t particularly useful, given it doesn’t guarantee value semantics. It could even do more harm than good, by being confusable with enforcing value semantics. Can you go into the use cases you have where you would use the knowledge that a type is a value type?
_______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
