[swift-evolution] Tuple conversion and type composition

[Patrick Gili]

"|" denotes bitwise-OR. Not necessarily a great choice.

-Patrick

> On Feb 7, 2016, at 1:41 PM, David Sweeris <davesweeris at mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Yeah, that's better than "+" or "&". What about "|"?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Feb 7, 2016, at 08:12, Patrick Gili via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> 
>> What about using << to denote concatenation? Many languages use this operator to denote "append", which is essentially concatenate.
>> 
>> -Patrick
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Andrew Bennett via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks Tino, it would be good to come up with some alternatives for +.
>>> 
>>> I was initially thinking `(Int,Int) (Int,Int)` without operators. However I think this could potentially be a mistake. I like + as it's familiar with array operators.
>>> 
>>> As for the prevalence of tuples in the language, every function and value in Swift has a tuple in it. The associated values in an enum are a tuple. They are everywhere.
>>> 
>>> For some more examples have a look at the linked proposal :)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Tino Heth <2th at gmx.de <mailto:2th at gmx.de>> wrote:
>>>> I'd like a a way to concatenate tuple types together:
>>>> 
>>>> typealias ABCD = (A,B)+(C,D) // Same as (A,B,C,D)
>>> 
>>> I don't like the use of "+" for concatenation, but giving more power to tuples would be neat… you just need to find examples with convincing motivation ;-)
>>> Obviously, the value of tuple-operation increases with the prevalence of tuples in language and libraries, so I wouldn't be surprised if their importance rises in the future (and maybe we can think of nice ways to combine tuple-related ideas).
>>> 
>>>> Also a way to allow tuples to be converted to other tuples that are the same when flattened:
>>>> 
>>>> (a,(b,c),d) as ((a,b),(c,d))
>>> It would be cool if such a concept ("compiler, please check if those two types have a compatible memory-layout, and if that is the case, let me use them interchangeable when I tell you to do so) could be extended to structs — that could solve the problem of different implementations of fundamental types nicely.
>>> 
>>> That leads me to an unrelated thought:
>>> It seems to me there is a duality between methods and closures on one side, and structs and tuples on the other — tuples feel very much like anonymous structs (restricted by the fact that you cannot add methods like custom getters & setters). It's not related to you proposal, but I wonder if there are implications visible from this point of view...
>>> 
>>> Tino
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160207/9718ae32/attachment.html>