It's not, as far as I'm aware, working on master. In any case, though, Box(T()) would be just as ergonomic as Box<T>() in Swift, which I don't think is the case in Rust, and the former is already possible without the need for conditional conformances.
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 16:57 David Sweeris via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Alexis via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > All in all, I don’t really have an opinion on whether Default makes > sense for Swift. Haven’t thought about it all that much. Swift is still > missing the features that make case 1 and 2 even viable motivations > (conditional conformance and derive annotations), and I believe already > mandates default initializers in several of the cases where 3 is relevant. > I *think* conditional conformance has already been accepted and just > hasn’t been implemented yet, at least not in an official “can use to > publish to app store” toolchain release. > > - Dave Sweeris > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
