<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">My personal theory of the whole phase-one construct is that it's just a way to calm everyone down, so that there is more time to actually do some work on the code ;-)<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Afair, the conversation about this didn't fade out slowly, but was stopped by someone saying "that addition is to big to be considered now".</div><div class="">I'm to lazy to fight with the medium to find a reference, but there is a draft for a proposal:</div><div class=""><a href="https://github.com/SwiftInofficialEvolution/Home/wiki/compile-time parameters" class="">https://github.com/SwiftInofficialEvolution/Home/wiki/compile-time%20parameters</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think the idea is quite useful, but it might be confusing for some people that they can create Vector<Int, size: 4> but not Vector<Int, size: myIntValue>.</div><div class="">The issue with the latter is obvious when you fully understand the concept, but if myIntValue is known to be a constant at compile time (or a fixed case of an enum…), it's harder to decide wether the compiler should accept it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In some aspect, the parameters have requirements that are opposite to "inout" — but that's a very fresh thought, and I've no idea if that duality might help.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- Tino</div></body></html>