<div dir="ltr">Different people are participating in different topics, so I wouldn't take the different responses as indicative of the community's opinion as a whole.<div><br></div><div>Another thing: higher-kinded types would make it easier to implement the sort of list comprehensions that languages like Scala have. The philosophy of the language, as stated by multiple members of the core team, is to prefer building tools that allow language features to be defined in libraries, over hard-coding specific features into the language grammar and specification. Here are a couple of examples:</div><div><br></div><div>- Custom operators and operator overloading, so things like '+' can be defined in the standard library</div><div>- isUniquelyReferenced(), so that library developers can implement their own collections with value semantics</div><div>- Literal convertible protocols, so that third-party types can be initialized from literals in source code when it makes sense</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Austin</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Amir Michail via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">How is it possible that higher kinded types are being discussed seriously while Python’s syntactic sugars (e.g., comprehensions) have been dismissed as too confusing?<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>