RFC: Generic aliases#28
Open
stakach wants to merge 4 commits into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rendered: https://github.com/stakach/rfcs/blob/rfc/generic-aliases/text/0028-generic-aliases.md
Summary
Allow
aliasdeclarations to take type parameters so a single declaration can stand in for a family of substituted types:A generic alias is usable everywhere a regular type is — as a restriction, in type declarations, inside generic instantiations, as a metaclass expression, and as a
forall Trestriction — and is purely substitutional (no new runtime type, no new dispatch).Motivation
#2803 — today there's no way to name a parameterised shape without either copy-pasting per-variant aliases (
MaybeInt32,MaybeString, …) or introducing a wrapper class with runtime cost. The RFC body covers prior art (Rust, Scala 3, TypeScript, Haskell) and the rationale for choosing transparent substitution over a nominal wrapper.Status
Drafted at the level of user-visible semantics; intentionally avoids prescribing compiler internals so the implementation has room to land however reviewers think is cleanest. Splat parameters and parameter constraints are explicitly listed as out of scope / unresolved for follow-up RFCs.