<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=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">1. Magic tuple conformances: We already want to be able to automatically conform tuples to protocols like Equatable, Hashable, and Comparable. These can all be compiler magic; they don't have to be definable in userspace.</div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br class=""></div><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">2. Conform tuples to Collection: The Element type should be the most specific common supertype of the tuple's elements. If all the elements are the same type, it would be that type. The Index and IndexDistance types should be Int.</div></div></blockquote><div>I always see tuples as some kind of anonymous struct, and those two have much more in common than with collections — so when tuples conform to collection, structs and classes should conform as well.</div><div>I'm just not sure what to think about that idea (might be useful, but could be terrible)</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">3. Conform same-type tuples to MutableCollection: If all elements are the same type, you can also modify the values. (If their types vary in any way, however, it would not be safe to allow mutations, since you could assign the wrong type to an element.)</div></div></blockquote><div>I think that's to confusing without much benefit in return.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">4. Add sugar for a tuple of N identical elements: Probably something like `4 * Int`, but opinions can vary.</div></div></blockquote></div>[small correction applied]<div class="">I strongly dislike all shortcuts that have been proposed, and think they don't pull their own weight.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For me, generics are definitely the best solution — maybe we should just declare literals to be types? ;-)</div></body></html>