On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgre...@apple.com> wrote: >> Or alternatively, one could decide to make the generics system *only and >> forever* work on nominal types, and make the syntactic sugar just be sugar >> for named types like Swift.Tuple, Function, and Optional. Either design >> could work. > > We don’t have a way to make it work for function types, though, because of > parameter-passing conventions. Well, assuming we don’t invent something that > allows: > > Function<Double, inout String> > > to exist in the type system. Tuple labels have a similar problem.
I’m totally aware of that and mentioned it upthread. There are various encoding tricks that could make this work depending on how you want to stretch the current generics system… -Chris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
