[swift-evolution] History and future of Swift's parentheses
jens at bitcycle.com
Mon Jun 12 14:41:43 CDT 2017
Ok, I understand, thanks!
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 9:29 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Jens Persson <jens at bitcycle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:52 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
>> We really do want to tie most of these features specifically to function
> I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Do you mean that you really
> don't want these features to require changes to the type system?
> That's correct. There's a lot of special structure to function calls —
> labels, overloading, default arguments, variadics, inout arguments,
> (eventually) borrowed arguments — that we do not want to introduce into the
> first-class tuple system, or at least not in the exact same way. In some
> cases, like overloading or defaulted and inout arguments, it cannot be done
> without a major and unwanted model shift. In other cases, like variadics,
> it could theoretically be done but would complicate the type system in ways
> we are trying to avoid.
> Regardless, the existence of any call-specific structure at all implies
> that generic value forwarding cannot always be sufficient to do generic
> argument forwarding. Maybe that's an argument for not having any
> call-specific structure, but we do have that and it's not going away.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution