<div dir="ltr">can we go the route of SE-15 and just synthesize up to some sensible n = 7 or whatever. i feel like this list has a habit of going “but it would be a lot better to add X if we just wait until Y is a thing first” ignoring that Y will probably not be a thing for the forseeable future and we really need X right now<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Slava Pestov 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"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">Ignoring synthesized conformances for a second, think about how you would manually implement a conformance of a tuple type to a protocol. You would need some way to statically “iterate” over all the component types of the tuple — in fact this is the same as having variadic generics.<div><br></div><div>If we had variadic generics, we could implement tuples conforming to protocols, either by refactoring the compiler to allow conforming types to be non-nominal, or by reworking things so that a tuple is a nominal type with a single variadic generic parameter.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Slava</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 20, 2017, at 9:06 PM, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-2428415465079209320Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">This is something I've wanted to look at for a while. A few weeks ago I pushed out <a href="https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/12598" target="_blank">https://github.com/apple/<wbr>swift/pull/12598</a> to extend the existing synthesis to handle structs/enums when a field/payload has a tuple of things that are Equatable/Hashable, and in that PR it was (rightly) observed, as Chris just did, that making tuples conform to protocols would be a more general solution that solves the same problem you want to solve here.<div><br></div><div>I'd love to dig into this more, but last time I experimented with it I got stuck on places where the protocol conformance machinery expects NominalTypeDecls, and I wasn't sure where the right place to hoist that logic up to was (since tuples don't have a corresponding Decl from what I can tell). Any pointers?</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:51 PM Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">On Nov 20, 2017, at 5:48 PM, Kelvin Ma <<a href="mailto:kelvin13ma@gmail.com" target="_blank">kelvin13ma@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">the end goal here is to use tuples as a compatible currency type, to that end it makes sense for these three protocols to be handled as “compiler magic” and to disallow users from manually defining tuple conformances themselves. i’m not a fan of compiler magic, but Equatable, Hashable, and Comparable are special because they’re the basis for a lot of standard library functionality so i think the benefits of making this a special supported case outweigh the additional language opacity.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>I understand your goal, but that compiler magic can’t exist until there is something to hook it into. Tuples can’t conform to protocols right now, so there is nothing that can be synthesized.</div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><br></div><div>-Chris</div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Chris Lattner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:clattner@nondot.org" target="_blank">clattner@nondot.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><span><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 20, 2017, at 5:39 PM, Kelvin Ma via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-2428415465079209320m_432242003226007445m_2255698535222666290Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div>when <a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0185-synthesize-equatable-hashable.md" target="_blank">SE-185</a> went through swift evolution, it was agreed that the <a href="https://www.mail-archive.com/swift-evolution@swift.org/msg26162.html" target="_blank">next logical step</a> is synthesizing these conformances for tuple types, though it was left out of the original proposal to avoid mission creep. I think now is the time to start thinking about this. i’m also tacking on <span style="font-family:monospace,monospace">Comparable</span> to the other two protocols because there is precedent in the language from <a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0015-tuple-comparison-operators.md" target="_blank">SE-15</a> that tuple comparison is something that makes sense to write.<br><br></div>EHC conformance is even more important for tuples than it is for structs because tuples effectively have no workaround whereas in structs, you could just manually implement the conformance. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>In my opinion, you’re approaching this from the wrong direction. The fundamental problem here is that tuples can’t conform to a protocol. If they could, synthesizing these conformances would be straight-forward.</div><div><br></div><div>If you’re interested in pushing this forward, the discussion is “how do non-nominal types like tuples and functions conform to protocols”?</div><span class="m_-2428415465079209320m_432242003226007445HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>-Chris</div><div><br></div><br><br></font></span></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote></div></div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/swift-<wbr>evolution</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>swift-evolution mailing list<br><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/swift-<wbr>evolution</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/swift-<wbr>evolution</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>