Right now, it's marked as "maybe" in the generic manifesto <https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/GenericsManifesto.md#generic-value-parameters>.
> There are a number of features that get discussed from time-to-time, while > they could fit into Swift's generics system, it's not clear that they belong > in Swift at all. The important question for any feature in this category is > not "can it be done" or "are there cool things we can express", but "how can > everyday Swift developers benefit from the addition of such a feature?". > Without strong motivating examples, none of these "maybes" will move further > along. Félix > Le 24 juil. 2017 à 10:06, David Sweeris <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Jul 24, 2017, at 9:37 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>> On Jul 23, 2017, at 4:27 PM, Félix Cloutier <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> >> Agreed. However, solving that general problem is hard, and completely >> orthogonal to the win of having fixed sized arrays work. > > Is there really any doubt that we'll eventually get Variadic Generics and > Non-Type Generic Parameters? They're always well-received whenever they come > up, but they keep getting ruled out-of-scope before a proposal can be fully > fleshed-out. I'm asking because it'd make it way easier to design a FSA > proposal knowing that it could rely on those features. Personally, I'd even > be ok with accepting such a proposal "pending the acceptance of its > 'dependency proposals'" (with probably a quick re-review to make sure any > subsequent proposals haven't materially changed how it'd work). > > - Dave Sweeris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
