> On Nov 21, 2017, at 10:37 PM, Chris Lattner <clatt...@nondot.org> wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgre...@apple.com > <mailto: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.
Eh, sorry I missed it. > There are various encoding tricks that could make this work depending on how > you want to stretch the current generics system… I think it’s straightforward and less ugly to make structural types allow extensions and protocol conformances. - Doug
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution