On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:03 PM, David Waite
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:15 PM, Dmitri Gribenko via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:49 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I am also for removing associated type inference, and I guess if it needs to
> be done, its now. Concerning SubSequence, isn’t that supposed to be away
> post Swift-3 once we have some of the more powerful generics?
>
>
> I'm not aware of any generics features that will allow us to remove
> SubSequence.
>
>
> Generalized existentials provide an intelligent default value on Sequence
> for SubSequence and Iterator, if Element was an associated type. There would
> still be efficiencies possible if you were able to specify these associated
> types as concrete types.
I would be very concerned about performance regressions because of
SubSequence being defined as an existential.
Dmitri
--
main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
(j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>*/
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
