On Apr 26, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution <[email protected]> wrote: > That seems like a purely syntactic concern that could potentially be > addressed in other ways, though. I'm not sure the choice of "duplicate all > operators using verbosely-named methods" is the best one for the reasons I > mentioned above, and the question of "how do we cleanly unify operators with > other protocol requirements?" seems out-of-scope and orthogonal to this > proposal.
There is a strong motivation for this approach though: we want the type checker to be scalable. John recently wrote an epic piece about why having tons of overloads is a really bad idea: https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-dev/Week-of-Mon-20160404/001650.html It is *much* better for type checker performance to have (e.g.): func +<T : FloatingPoint>(lhs : T, rhs : T) -> T { return lhs.add(rhs) } func +<T : Integer>(lhs : T, rhs : T) -> T { return lhs.add(rhs) } Rather than overloads for 4 floating point types, and 8+ integer types. We really need to eliminate all the “expression too complex” classes of issues, and this is an important cause of them. -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
