on Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:54:21 -0800 Douglas Gregor <dgre...@apple.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2017, at 10:48 PM, David Hart <da...@hartbit.com> wrote: > > > > On 22 Nov 2017, at 07:41, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > > > >> > >> I think it’s straightforward and less ugly to make structural types > allow extensions and protocol conformances. > > > > Can somebody explain to me what is less ugly about that? I would have > naturally thought that the language would be simpler as a whole if there > only existed nominal types and all structural types were just sugar over > them. > > See Thorsten’s response with, e.g., > > Function<Double, InoutParam<String>, Param<Int>> > > which handles “inout” by adding wrappers around the parameter types (which > one would have to cope with in any user of Function), but still doesn’t > handle argument labels. To handle argument labels, we would need something > like strings as generic arguments. We’d also need to handle calling > conventions and anything else we invent for function types. > > can you outline how extensions and protocol conformances might look for structural types? to compare the ugliness of both approaches. Mike
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
