I think this proposal is trying to do too much at once. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re proposing
1) New sugar for fixed-length arrays without a corresponding stdlib declaration 2) Arity and type inference for literals 3) Default initialization semantics for arrays including a DI exception for fixed-length arrays that aren’t fully initialized 4) 2 new attribute declarations for unspecified concurrency semantics 5) A magical compiler intrinsic that declares loop counters 6) Static collection subtyping constraints referencing convertibility constraints we don’t currently have 7) Tuple conversions I believe your aims are noble, and this is certainly a tremendously important problem we need to solve, but I think there needs to be a measured response to the current state of things. ~Robert Widmann > On Jul 10, 2017, at 9:54 PM, Daryle Walker via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Spent the past week coming up with a full proposal for fixed-size arrays. I > wrote it mainly from the bottom upwards. There may be some inconsistencies. > And I'm not entirely sure what "structural sub-typing" means, or if it's > appropriate for arrays. > > <https://gist.github.com/CTMacUser/cfffa526b971d0e1f3a079f53c6819bb > <https://gist.github.com/CTMacUser/cfffa526b971d0e1f3a079f53c6819bb#file-nnnn-fixed-size-arrays-md>> > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > 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
