The elements already have an Identity, the one that you get when you invoke the default constructor. It's 0 for Int, "" for String.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 11:24 AM, David Sweeris <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 26, 2016, at 11:12, Tino Heth via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > There is an older discussion that is somewhat linked to this topic: > "Removing the empty initialiser requirement from > RangeReplaceableCollection" > https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/ > Week-of-Mon-20160704/023642.html > > Imho "DefaultConstructible" types can be very handy, but so far, it seems > no one has presented a single use case that is important enough to justify > the inclusion in the stdlib. > On the other hand, I'm quite sure that there's much functionality in the > stdlib that many people consider as superfluous… > > I guess adding the protocol wouldn't have a big impact on size, so for for > me, the question is "Does this protocol confuse users of Swift?", which I'd > answer with "yes, possibly" (unless someone comes up with a name that is > more intuitive). > > > "Identity", but, at least for many numeric types, you'd need a mechanism > for specifying which one you mean. > > - Dave Sweeris >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
