> On Apr 27, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > on Tue Apr 26 2016, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 2016, at 7:34 PM, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Would something like this be possible? Imagine protocols defined like this: >>> >>> public protocol Equatable { >>> static func == (lhs: Self, rhs: Self) -> Self >>> } >> >> The problem is that every type that conforms to Equatable has to >> provide an overload of == in order to conform. This is exactly what >> having named methods as requirements solves. > > Note that Tony is proposing to make the requirement static. Whether > it's actually called “==” or isEqual is almost immaterial, because the > fact that it is static makes it less likely that anyone will try to call > it directly. > > However, if we allowed static operators to be defined, and called using > the syntax “T.==(x,y)”, as Tony has suggested, IMO it would further > discourage direct use, and it would avoid growing the number of > truly distinct spellings for the same operation. > > That would also remove many instances of “formXXX” methods that > currently cause many people discomfort. Whether that's a win or not > depends on whether you view widespread discomfort with “formXXX” as a > nuisance or a beneficial forcing function for finding something better > ;-)
Personally I like this, but t’s not totally clear how it would extend to mutating operations. `T.+=(x: inout T, y: T)`? – Steve _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
