[swift-evolution] Enhanced existential types proposal discussion

[Adrian Zubarev]

I added a note to my proposal which makes it clear that the `Any<>` I proposed represents the simple/base form that Swift 3 should integrate, if accepted. Later `Any<>` could be enhanced without any breaking changes.

I’m not sure if your and my nesting rules do fit together, we might reconsider mine before the pull request is accepted.

- Also I don’t see the point why `Any<Any<ProtocolA, ProtocolB>>` this is illegal!?

	`Any<>` proposed by me will allow that, even it its useless form the point of the readers view. This type is inferred to `Any<ProtocolA, ProtocolB>`.

Why do you not allow value types in your proposal?

-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160518/22002793/attachment.html>