> On May 31, 2016, at 6:05 PM, Joe Groff <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On May 31, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On May 31, 2016, at 12:17 PM, L Mihalkovic via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> well there is no macro system, and for the moment a clear statement from >>> chris that this is not on the table in the short term. the code in the >>> example looked like run-of-the-mill swift, except for the “…". so that >>> leaves us with swift looking code that would be executed by the compiler, >>> but with nothing particular to tell which parts to and which not. just a >>> thought. >> >> Lets be clear though: variadic generics are not in scope for Swift 3 either. >> >> >> I definitely don’t speak for the rest of the core team, nor have I discussed >> it with them… but IMO, this whole feature seems like a better fit for a >> macro system than it does to complicate the generics system. Unlike C++’s >> template system, our generics system inherently has runtime / dynamic >> dispatch properties, and I don’t think that shoehorning variadics into it is >> going to work out well. > > There's definitely the possibility of going off the deep end with complexity > like C++, but since we already have tuples as a primitive language feature, I > think there's a straightforward language design that enables the most > important use cases for variadics. If we have "tuple splatting" for argument > forwarding, and some support for iterating tuples, like we briefly discussed > in the context of (4 x Int) fixed-sized homogeneous tuples, that'd probably > be enough.
Ok, fair enough. However, I think that it is inescapable that any discussion of variadic generics needs to include implementation concerns. -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
