[swift-evolution] Proposal: Contiguous Variables (A.K.A. Fixed Sized Array Type)

[davesweeris at mac.com]

Speaking of spitballing, these can be nested/composed, right?
let x = (3 x (0, 2 x “”), 2 x NSFileManager())

So, I think that this would be correct:
let x0 = x.0 // is ((Int, (String, String)), (Int, (String, String)), (Int, (String, String)))
let x1 = x.1 // is (NSFileManager, NSFileManager)
let xIdx0 = x.0[0] // is (Int, (String, String))

Can we implicitly “unzip” the implicit "arrays”, as well?
let x00 = x.0.0 // is (Int, Int, Int)… equivalent to let x00 = x.0.map { $0.0 }
let x01 = x.0.1 // is ((String, String), (String, String), (String, String))… equivalent to let x01 = x.0.map { $0.1 }

- Dave Sweeris

> On Jan 29, 2016, at 10:43, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 9:24 PM, Félix Cloutier <felixcca at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> To me, it's closely related to the declaration issue. By introducing a (N x Type) syntax, we're solving the LHS problem but leaving the RHS problem intact. If we want to spin it off into a separate proposal, I think that the most logical split is to have a proposal for subscripts on uniform tuples, and a a proposal for the shorthand syntax and a way to initialize values of these types.
> 
> Just spitballing…we could bring the N x <expr> syntax to expressions as well, so that (5 x 0) is (0,0,0,0,0), and maybe (1, 3 x 0, 2) is (1, 0, 0, 0, 2). With integer literals it's hard to tell which side is which, though...
> 
> -Joe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160129/0d758ea5/attachment.html>