(inline) On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 31, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Austin Zheng <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have a proposal for #6 in the pipe, but there are actually some > subtleties I have to work out (it's not as simple as just slapping a > generic type signature on a let constant). > > > Cool. Looking forward to reviewing a draft when it’s ready. > > > I think #5 is just considered a 'bug' and doesn't need a proposal (it > might actually be finished already; I saw some commits recently); same with > #4. #7 is not very useful without variadic generics (it pretty much exists > to allow tuples to conform to protocols, and tuples are inherently > variadic). > > > Good to know 4 and 5 are considered bugs. I know #4 is important for the > standard library so I suppose that will ensure it is a priority soon enough. > > I included #7 because it would still be nice to have for a number of > reasons. Maybe there is a way to pull it off for a handful of types that > are known to the compiler. > > I wanted to take a stab at #2. > > > Are you still thinking about this one or did you decide not to pursue it? > I think I'd like to try writing something up. > > The core team has talked so much about #1 that I'd be surprised if they > don't already have an idea as to how they want to do it, plus it's > complicated for a number of reasons to get right. In such a case having the > community push forward an alternate proposal would just be giving everyone > more unneeded work. > > > Agree here as well. I’ve avoided generics proposals mostly because I > thought the core team was leading the charge on all them. It now appears > like that may not have been the right assumption across the board. I wish > we had a bit more visibility on this... > Yes, same. I'm going off this bullet point at the beginning of the generics manifesto: "I hope to achieve several things: ... Engage more of the community in discussions of specific generics features, so we can coalesce around designs for public review. And maybe even get some of them implemented." > > > #3 seems semantically straightforward. AFAIK there's nothing a subscript > can do that a getter and setter method can't do together, and methods can > already be generic. A proposal shouldn't be hard to put together. > > > Agree. Someone just needs to jump in and write it up. :-) If it had a > chance of making it into Swift 3 I would do it right away, but it’s hard to > tell... > I'd be happy to write up a proposal, especially if it's as straightforward as it seems.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
