on Mon Mar 28 2016, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu-AT-gmail.com> wrote: > D'oh! Of course, that sounds great. Would it require you to do something > else to cover your example with UnsafePointers though?
Nope; it Just Works™ > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 4:56 PM Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> on Mon Mar 28 2016, Erica Sadun <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 28, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> on Mon Mar 28 2016, Xiaodi Wu >> > >> >> <[email protected] >> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Right, Countable could refine Strideable. I'm no expert on this, but >> >>> some cursory reading suggests that the analogous feature in C++ simply >> >>> requires the type to have operator++ defined. Obviously, that won't >> >>> work for Swift 3.0... >> >> >> >> Hmm, instead of defining a new protocol (Countable), what if we just use >> >> “Strideable where Stride : Integer” as a constraint? >> > >> > I like a differentiation between continuous and discrete things >> > although both can have ranges, membership, fences, >> > and a way to stride through them >> >> Strideable where Stride : Integer expresses just exactly that. Now if I >> could only get the type-checker to cooperate... >> >> > >> > >> > -- E, just musing, not passing judgement on names >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > swift-evolution mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> >> -- >> Dave >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
