I think I've already said that, but I agree that an incremental approach to this would be better.
> Le 23 juil. 2017 à 15:57, Chris Lattner <clatt...@nondot.org> a écrit : > > On Jul 22, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Daryle Walker <dary...@mac.com> wrote: >>> In my opinion, there is an easy three step plan :-) to solving this >>> problem, riffing on Array: >> >> Well, fixed-size arrays don’t have initializers, for the same reason tuples >> don’t: they’re compound types instead of named types and they literally have >> nowhere to place initializer definitions. But like tuples, FSAs have a >> literal syntax that works as a substitute for full-blown initializers. > > Ok, sure. They aren’t literally initializers in the stdlib (they are built > into the compiler), but they have initialization semantics and can be spelled > in whatever way makes ergonomic sense. Keeping them aligned with Array seems > like a good starting point. Either way, in the context of fixed-size arrays, I think that it's a broader problem that anonymous types can't have anything attached to them. This also prevents fixed-size arrays from conforming to protocols, even Sequence, and Swift would need variadic generics or (possibly, depending on the syntax) non-type generic parameters to even create a wrapper. Félix _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
