[swift-evolution] [Pitch] merge types and protocols back together with type<Type, Protocol, ...>

[Thorsten Seitz]

But don't you mean the union type of all possible Collection types when you write Any<Collection>?

I suggested `all<>` for the intersection type, and `any<>` for the union type, so that would be the same, wouldn't it?

-Thorsten 

Am 17.05.2016 um 07:10 schrieb Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>:

>> We've been over this a few times before on the list. I personally like naming this thing "Any<…>" in the same vein as "AnyObject", "AnyClass", and "AnySequence". I also see Thorsten (and in the past Brent's?) argument for calling it "all" or "All", because it's enforcing multiple constraints.
> 
> I have suggested `all<>` in the past, but I now favor `Any`, because that allows it to be unified with the universal supertype `Any`, `Any<class>`, and things like `Any<Collection>` to forge the One Existential Syntax to rule them all.
> 
> -- 
> Brent Royal-Gordon
> Architechies
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution