on Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 08:01:16 +0100 David Hart <da...@hartbit.com> wrote:
> > What confuses me is that I always thought that T? was sugar for > Optional<T> by design, and found that to be quite elegant. ditto, i thought the same. > But now you’re telling me that its just a hack to allow conformance on > Optionals until it can be made structural. I would have thought that it > would be cleaner to have specific concepts (optionals, tuples, etc…) > represented in terms of more general concepts (enum, struct) so that the > compiler had less to reason about. I’m just trying to understand :-) > Mike
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
