<div dir="ltr">Semantically, I believe enums with more than one associated value are actually just enums with one associated value, of tuple type.<div><br></div><div>I'm not convinced it would be bad to do magic function generation, but it's worth considering explicit syntax. If we were to use @ compile-time attributes, maybe it could be a word before the case -- like @projectable or @selectable (or some better name)?</div><div><br></div><div>enum List<T> {</div><div> @projectable case Empty</div><div> indirect case FirstAndRest(T, List<T>)</div><div>}</div><div><br></div><div>generates:</div><div>myList.isEmpty() -> Bool</div><div><br></div><div>Another option: some sort of @reflectable attribute on the enum itself.</div><div><br></div><div>@reflectable enum Pet {</div><div> case Cat(name: String, color: String)</div><div> case Dog(name: String, breed: String)</div><div> case Bear(name: String, isHibernating: Bool)</div><div>}</div><div><br></div><div>And one other option, in a very different direction, that seems weird but maybe has its benefits:</div><div><br></div><div>What if we exposed an associatedValue computed property of type Any? (It would be unit type for cases with no associated value.)</div><div><br></div><div>You could then do something like this:</div><div><br></div><div>enum Contact {</div><div> case Person(String) // name</div><div> case Business(String) // org name</div><div> case FamilyMember(String) // relation name</div><div> case RecentCall(Int) // a contact from caller id, only store the phone number</div><div><br></div><div> func name() -> String {</div><div> return associatedValue as? String ?? "Unknown (\(associatedValue as! Int))"</div><div> }</div><div>}</div><div><br></div><div>Essentially, it allows you to project out a relatively common associated value (in this case a string) without much boilerplate. It's also just one thing for the compiler to generate, instead of <i>n</i>. Not crazy about any of these... just brainstorming. It may also be that a concise switch-like control flow expression eliminates the need for this.</div><div><br></div><div>-Alex</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:49 AM, <a href="mailto:thorsten@portableinnovations.de">thorsten@portableinnovations.de</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thorsten@portableinnovations.de" target="_blank">thorsten@portableinnovations.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">I would prefer if no "magic" methods would be generated automatically, but only when marked with @derivestandardmethods (fill in better name here).</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">As to naming I like the proposal #1 by Alex.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">What about enums with more than one associated value?</span><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div>
<span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">-Thorsten</span>
</div></font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<div>
<br>Am 09.12.2015 um 07:29 schrieb Alex Lew via swift-evolution <
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>>:
<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
Thanks, Chris, for all the time you're putting into responding to these proposals (and the kindness with which you're responding!). I really like that solution.
<div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
Brainstorming some names for the auto-generated functions:
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
1. If a case has no associated values, isX() -> Bool is generated, where X is the case name.
</div>
<div>
If a case has an associated value of type T, asX() -> T? is generated, where X is the case name.
</div>
</div>
<div>
This mirrors is/as? operators, which return Bool / Optional respectively.
</div>
<div>
2. projectX() -> Bool / projectX() -> T?
</div>
<div>
3. isX() -> Bool / xValue() -> T?
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
Another option (probably the wrong option, but it's worth putting out there) is that instead of returning Bool in the no-associated-value case, we return ()?. This would make me feel better about using the same naming convention (asX(), projectX(), xValue(), etc.) for each case, and would allow for != nil checks on all cases. But it would probably be a little confusing for newcomers to the language.
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
One (potentially misguided) question. I noticed in proposal 0002 (on removing function currying) that there are "plans to move away from the arguments-are-a-single-tuple model" in the near future. Would this also affect associated values of enums? That is, might
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
case Dog(name: String, age: Int, breed: String)
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
one day not have the semantics of a single associated value of type (name: String, age: Int, breed: String)? Or is the de-ML-ification planned only for function arguments?
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
-Alex
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Chris Lattner
<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:clattner@apple.com" target="_blank">clattner@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span><br> > On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:05 PM, Alex Lew via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > Hi all,<br> ><br> > Curious to hear thoughts on allowing non-binding pattern matches to be used as boolean values outside of an if, guard, for...in, while, switch, etc. Something like:<br> ><br> > enum List<T> {<br> > case Empty<br> > indirect case Link(T, List<T>)<br> ><br> > func isEmpty() -> Bool {<br> > return case .Empty = self<br> > }<br> > }<br> <br> </span>I agree with you that this is a problem that we should solve, but I think it could be solved in a different way. Imagine if:
<br>
<br> enum Foo {
<br> case X(a : Float), Y, Z(a : Int)
<br> }
<br>
<br> automatically synthesized these members (the exact names are just a strawman proposal, not serious :-)
<br>
<br> extension Foo {
<br> func isX() -> Float? {…}
<br> func isY() -> Bool {…}
<br> func isZ() -> Int? {…}
<br> }
<br>
<br> This would tie into all of the mechanics we have for dealing with optionals, e.g. if/let and ??
<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br> -Chris</font></span>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span>
<br>
<span>swift-evolution mailing list</span>
<br>
<span><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a></span>
<br>
<span><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></span>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-top:10px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica,Arial;color:#999">
Untracked with
<a style="color:#999" href="https://trackbuster.com/?sig" target="_blank">Trackbuster</a>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>