[swift-evolution] 'T != Type' in where clause
nicolas.fezans at gmail.com
Tue Feb 28 01:21:27 CST 2017
I would also welcome to be able to use "or" and "and" logical operators
(not only the not operator) on these constraints.
I have sometimes generic functions whose code is identical but is written
twice: first with 'where T=P1' and then with 'where T=P2', being able to
write for instance 'where T=(P1 or P2)' would be very handy IMO.
One could often argue that additional protocols and extensions could be
defined as a workaround to the situation I just mentioned but it seems
often a bit of an overkill to me when you only have a couple of functions
with that combination of requirements.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Nicholas Maccharoli via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> + 1
> I personally find this frustrating, but at the same time Im curious as to
> what the argument against
> introducing this is.
> - Nick
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> > On Feb 27, 2017, at 16:34, Rex Fenley via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> > I often find myself running into situations where I'll receive
>> "Ambiguous use of..." for overloaded functions or operators. In every case
>> these situations would be easily solved if I could specify "Generic !=
>> CertainType" in the where clause of one of the overloads so I can
>> disambiguate the cases. Could this be added to language?
>> + all the 1s, along with something like "where !(T: Foo)"
>> IIRC, the topic has come up before, though I couldn't (quickly) find it
>> and don't recall what the response was (other than some variation of "no",
>> since we don't have it).
>> - Dave Sweeris
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution