I hope that Swift 4.0 will have enough template-like syntax to build something
like a generic matrix that can be used in a typesafe way, but in the meantime,
I wanted to harness the power of unicode to create "class Matrix«4×4»", which
really confused the compiler.
"class Vector🐸" is no problem
Hi there,
> I think it would be better if we permitted an implicit conversion between
> (T…) -> () and ([T]) -> ()
There has been a proposal to replace the "…" with a "variadic"-annotation (on
arrays, or even on all types that can be expressed as arrays):
https://github.com/Haravikk/swift-evolu
> This sounds like a cosmetic proposal that doesn’t change semantics, so I
> don’t think it’s directly related to the change I’m proposing.
Well, you're the expert here, and I haven't looked at the compiler source at
all — but as I understand your first message, there are special vararg-types
(
That's a great choice ;-) — if I had the time, this would be the Swift-feature
I'd spend it for…
I hope you have the stamina to finish that, and although it's no real help for
implementation, I have some remarks that might be useful in the long run.
There are already some thoughts on the topic o
> Thoughts?
It’s a real problem, but I think there are better ways to fight it… none the
less, it’s the best countermeasure that is implemented now, so: Is there any
impact on performance?___
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swi
> Am 01.11.2017 um 17:51 schrieb Greg Titus via swift-dev :
>
> The common (and correct!) wisdom in _any_ programming language that uses IEEE
> floating point is that checking equality of two floating point values is
> almost always a terrible idea. Usually what you want in any real world code
