<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 21, 2017, at 10:48 PM, David Hart <<a href="mailto:david@hartbit.com" class="">david@hartbit.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div 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;" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="">On 22 Nov 2017, at 07:41, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 21, 2017, at 10:37 PM, Chris Lattner <<a href="mailto:clattner@nondot.org" class="">clattner@nondot.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:25 PM, Douglas Gregor <<a href="mailto:dgregor@apple.com" class="">dgregor@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div 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;">Or alternatively, one could decide to make the generics system *only and forever* work on nominal types, and make the syntactic sugar just be sugar for named types like Swift.Tuple, Function, and Optional. Either design could work.</div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">We don’t have a way to make it work for function types, though, because of parameter-passing conventions. Well, assuming we don’t invent something that allows:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Function<Double, inout String></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">to exist in the type system. Tuple labels have a similar problem.</div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m totally aware of that and mentioned it upthread.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Eh, sorry I missed it.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""> There are various encoding tricks that could make this work depending on how you want to stretch the current generics system…</div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">I think it’s straightforward and less ugly to make structural types allow extensions and protocol conformances.</div></div></blockquote><div 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;" class=""><br class=""></div><div 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;" class="">Can somebody explain to me what is less ugly about that? I would have naturally thought that the language would be simpler as a whole if there only existed nominal types and all structural types were just sugar over them.</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">See Thorsten’s response with, e.g.,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span> Function<Double, InoutParam<String>, Param<Int>></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">which handles “inout” by adding wrappers around the parameter types (which one would have to cope with in any user of Function), but still doesn’t handle argument labels. To handle argument labels, we would need something like strings as generic arguments. We’d also need to handle calling conventions and anything else we invent for function types.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Doug</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>