[swift-evolution] Proposal: Contiguous Variables (A.K.A. Fixed Sized Array Type)
Nate Birkholz
nbirkholz at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 21:35:53 CST 2016
What about (n of Type)?
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse brevity and errors
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 7:32 PM, Félix Cloutier via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> Currently, arrays contained in C structures are exported as tuples to Swift. If tuples need magic to align like C arrays, that magic already exists. Operators can't appear inside a type, so I don't think that it would be a problem to reuse * there either.
>
> Aesthetically speaking, I think that (N x Type) looks better than (N * Type), but I don't like that (0xBeef) is either a tuple of 0 Beef objects or a hex number, which would be a problem if Swift must allow integers a type parameters.
>
> Félix
>
>> Le 28 janv. 2016 à 22:12:29, Justin Kolb via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> a écrit :
>>
>> I’m not sure I like the fact that they would be associated with tuples. As far as I’m aware tuples don’t have a public or well documented memory layout and most likely it would be better to keep them that way. To be compatible with C a fixed size array would have to have similar memory layout requirements. Also I assume there was a reason not to allow subscripting of tuples originally and adding it to something similar might confuse things. If any of these things are non-issues then I’m fine with them looking like tuples. I do think they will need to be able to be initialized with array like initializers in some form.
>>
>> I somewhat wish they would have been added in originally as it seems like it will be trickier to find a good form that isn’t already taken. I think it would probably be problematic for the parser to make use of `*` or `x`. Maybe after moving the count to the front of the declaration `:` would end up being different enough from other uses of `:` to make this work:
>>
>> let values: (4:Int)
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 9:04 PM, Trent Nadeau <tanadeau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That looks great except that I would prefer (4 * Int). Having "x" as an operator looks very odd to me, and it doesn't fit with the rest of the language.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>> I find
>>>>
>>>> let values: (4 x Int) = (1, 2, 3, 4)
>>>>
>>>> to be adequately cromulent. I believe this approach to be:
>>>>
>>>> * Readable, even to someone unfamiliar with the syntax
>>>> * The parens before the assignment suggest something to do with tuples, and the numbers match the arity after the assignment
>>>> * The type is preserved in-place
>>>> * It's compact, elegant, simple
>>>>
>>>> -- E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 4:04 PM, Haravikk <e-mail at haravikk.me> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28 Jan 2016, at 22:37, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch <jtbandes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like this idea, but the syntax seems dangerously close to a call site for "func *(lhs: Int, rhs: Any.Type)" (which is obviously ill-advised, but it is allowed).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe we could take advantage of something which would be very invalid under the current grammar, namely (n T) rather than (n * T):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> let values: (4 Int) = (1, 2, 3, 4)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, or we could lift (4 x Int) from LLVM IR's syntax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> let values:Int[4] = (1,2,3,4)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While it looks a bit like a subscript, it doesn’t make sense in a type declaration at present, so could be a good way to define restrictions of this type (we could even extend it to collections later). If the similarity is too close then:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> let values:(Int[4]) = (1,2,3,4)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could work too? Just some alternatives anyway, as I like the idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> This kind of syntax doesn't compose well with other type productions. If you parse Int[N][M] naively as (Int[N])[M], then you end up with an array of M (array of N (Int)), which ends up subscripting in the opposite order, array[0..<M][0..<N]. C works around this by flipping the order of multiple array indices in a type declaration, so int [n][m] is really (int [m]) [n], but this doesn't work well for Swift, which has other postfix type productions—how would Int[N]?[M] parse? Choosing a prefix notation for fixed-sized array bounds is better IMO to avoid these pitfalls.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Trent Nadeau
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160128/a249f582/attachment.html>
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list