> On Dec 1, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Greg Titus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Dec 1, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Ben Langmuir via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Hey Doug,
>>
>> I'm very much in favour of reducing the scope of associated type inference.
>> Can you outline why you believe that (3) is necessary? If I am following
>> correctly, if we had (1) and (2) the only thing you'd need to add to the
>> "minimal collection" implementation would be a typealias for `Element`,
>> which seems reasonable to me.
>>
>> Ben
>
> If nothing else, dropping (3) would be source breaking for 90%+ of current
> associated type uses. Whereas even the very minimal inference in (3) probably
> brings that figure down to 1% or so (outside of the stdlib, which would need
> to adopt a bunch of (2)). Obviously these percentages are just my guesses and
> not based on any real survey, but certainly would be the case for all Swift
> code I’ve seen.
Many of the associated-type inference bugs I’ve seen were from people expecting
something like (3), but the current implementation either fails to infer
anything (the common case!) or we get inference from some seemingly-unrelated
place. I included (3) specifically because I think taking away (3) will break
source compatibility significantly (as Greg suggests)… and despite the fact
that the complexity of implementation for (3) is fairly high.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
