Comments inline. > On Jun 2, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Daryle Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jun 2, 2017, at 4:06 AM, Jaden Geller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I don’t know if you’re aware, but you can extend arbitrary nominal types >> with literal syntax. >> >> ``` >> extension FixedSizedArray: ExpressibleAsDictionaryLiteral { … } >> ``` >> >> Nothing special needs to be done on the implementation side to make this >> possible. If fixed sized arrays are not nominal types (like tuples, unlike >> `Array`s), then you will only be able to give this sugar to types that wrap >> them, not the type itself (w/o special support). > > I don’t think that’ll work with the “where” clauses and “default” values in > the new syntax.
I explained point-by-point which of these would be possible. If you reference the original message, I stated that the “where” sugar could instead be expressed with a lambda function. Personally, I’m against adding this new “where" sugar to the language, especially since the alternative seems no worse. I do think the “default” sugar is a good idea (as I stated there as well), but I don’t think it must be considered with fixed length arrays. It seems like an entirely additive and orthogonal feature. > >> What’s the discussion on enhanced array and dictionary literals? I think I >> missed that. > > This is the discussion. I’m asking if this “enhanced array” syntax I just > came up with would interfere with the existing dictionary syntax from a > parsing perspective. I see. The first two cases (which are just normal dictionary syntax) are already possible. I don’t know about the third “where” case, but I don’t think it’s necessary. The 4th case seems possible since the keyword “default” cannot be used as an identifier. > — > Daryle Walker > Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie > darylew AT mac DOT com > Cheers, Jaden Geller _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
