SE-0483: `InlineArray` Literal Syntax

[austintatious (Austin)]

@allevato

As someone who is somewhat familiar with LLVM IR and is also comfortable with the [n x T] syntax proposed here, I also personally happen to agree that it doesn't make for good prior art.

I concur. In the other thread I accidentally posted (what I attached below). I wanted to add as well that I fully believe that most of us in this forum would function just fine with x, we're technical people who like technical things; I am largely in objection because (1) it doesn't fit Swift, (2) it doesn't convey as well what a keyword like of would, and (3) in certain contexts it really does just look like multiplication (i.e [5 x 3]) -- where as (of) doesn't suffer this. So while I am sympathetic to the prior art reasoning, I think that this is a case where Swift should go it's own way -- especially since we want the keyword to be used in more context that what is currently available in LLVM IR. (I've enumerated these before so I won't do it again, you can read here SE-0483: `InlineArray` Literal Syntax - #299 by austintatious)

Why did the `InlineArray` type sugar proposal come to review?

Yes. And LLVM IR has completely different design philosophy to Swift. x just doesn’t fit into Swift’s. Additionally, considering how it would look and be used in other contexts is important. [10 x 10] appears like multiplication not like repetition (as far as I know this doesn’t exist in LLVM IR, could be wrong) EDIT: I just realized this topic didn’t belong here. And should be in the other thread.