This proposal gives FSAs their own literal syntax. You write [; 3, 5] to make a FSA, not [3, 5].
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:54 PM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> wrote: > > On Jul 23, 2017, at 8:32 PM, Taylor Swift <kelvin1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 5:48 PM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Jul 23, 2017, at 12:18, Taylor Swift <kelvin1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 2:21 PM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 23, 2017, at 09:08, Taylor Swift <kelvin1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> let fsa:[2 * Int] = [2 * 5, 3] // [10, 3] ??? >>> >>> >>> Correct. If you wanted a multidimensional array, that'd be written "let >>> nestedFSA: [2*[5*Int]]". Or, speculating a bit, I suppose maybe "let >>> nestedFSA: [[5*Int]*2]", if we wanted there to be a column-major option. >>> IMHO all those read better than this proposal's syntax. >>> >>> >>> >> No, what I’m saying is does the phrase “[2 * 5, 3]” mean a fixed size >> array of length two and with the elements 5 and 3, or a flexible sized >> array with two elements 10 and 3? This is v confusing and difficult to >> read, especially when you have actual multiplications going on such as >> >> let fsa:[2 * Int] = [2 * 3 * 5, 3] // [15, 3] ??? >> >> >> That's... huh? To me, "[2 * 3 * 5, 3]" should obviously evaluate to >> "[30, 3]". How are you getting that "[2*5*3, 3]" could be a 2-element FSA >> containing 15 and 3? Are you suggesting that instead of "[value * value * >> value, value]", it could be parsed as "[modifier value * value, value]" >> (with `modifier` being "2 *")? To me, that syntax would *strongly* >> suggest that the modifier only applies to the first element of the array, >> which would mean the only other option for parsing it would be equivalent >> to "[[3, 5], 3]", which is neither a match for fsa's type, nor a >> semantically valid array (the elements have to be the same type), nor a >> syntactically valid array (the nested array in the first element is missing >> its "[]"). >> >> > Well, that *is* the syntax you’re proposing right? What comes on the left > of the asterisk is the FSA dimensions, and what comes to the right is the > FSA elements. > > > No, the *type* of the FSA's elements is what comes to the right: "[count > * *Type*]". I don't recall any discussion around the value side of > things, so I'd guess they would've just used the existing array literal > syntax, "let fsa: [2*[2*Int]] = [[0, 1], [2, 3]]". > > - Dave Sweeris > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
