> On Aug 2, 2017, at 21:45, Daryle Walker via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > I’m not good at explicit explanations, so having to justify adding a type > that’s been around for a long time (at least FORTRAN 4+ decades ago) an > almost every systems programming language has is frustrating. I thought the > desire would be obvious; if there were FSAs in Swift 1, would there be any > “just slap Collection on tuples and be done with it” suggestions now? It > doesn’t help that I still don’t know why FSAs where skipped in Swift 1; did > they forget or was there some high-level type-theory reason? (Were the type > description records in the Swift ABI too fragile for a type that wouldn’t > have per-sub-object entries (assuming theoretical Swift-1-FSAs weren’t > translated to massive homogenous tuples)?)
This is purely a guess, but I think it was just that there's only so much time and there's not much that actually *requires* FSAs, other than to remove overhead. Actually, as they've been described in this thread, I think that's all they do? The way we'd previously discussed them, they could conform to protocols and such, like any other type. - Dave Sweeris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
