<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 29, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Trent Nadeau <<a href="mailto:tanadeau@gmail.com" class="">tanadeau@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Is having fixed arrays with large numbers of elements (256, 1024, etc.) going to cause issues with protocol conformance of tuples? I believe that since the type system doesn't currently have type-level integers, tuple protocol conformance is done via a hard-coded limit.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Tuples still don't really conform to protocols, we just provide overloads for the <>== operators for small tuples now. Proper language support for tuple protocol conformance ought to account for arbitrary variadic-ness.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Joe</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">That makes sense, thanks. I'm wondering if the N x T syntax might 'naturally fall out' of such a system for any other use cases.<br class="">
<br class="">
Daydreaming aside, I think this is a great proposal and it'll make 256-member C array tuples less awful to work with.<br class="">
<br class="">
Austin<br class="">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br class="">
> On Jan 29, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Joe Groff <<a href="mailto:jgroff@apple.com" class="">jgroff@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
><br class="">
><br class="">
>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class="">
>><br class="">
>> I like the (Count x Type) design, but if Swift got integer generic parameters in the future is this what tuple shorthand syntax would still look like (not rhetorical, actually asking)? It would be nice to future-proof whatever design we come up with, to a reasonable extent.<br class="">
><br class="">
> You'd still need something to define FixedArray<N> in terms of:<br class="">
><br class="">
> struct FixedArray<T,N: Int> { var values: (N x T) }<br class="">
><br class="">
> -Joe<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
swift-evolution mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br class="">
</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>-- <br class=""><div class="gmail_signature">Trent Nadeau</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>