[swift-evolution] Enhanced existential types proposal discussion

[Matthew Johnson]

Sent from my iPad

> On May 23, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Thorsten Seitz <tseitz42 at icloud.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Am 23.05.2016 um 19:17 schrieb Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com>:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 23, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Am 23.05.2016 um 00:18 schrieb Austin Zheng via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>:
>>>> 
>>>> I agree; the difference between protocols with and without associated types has been an endless source of confusion for a lot of people.
>>>> 
>>>> Speaking of which, for those who care I rewrote the draft proposal to attempt a much more rigorous treatment of the semantics of the generalized existential, including a discussion about existential type equivalence and subtyping. It would be nice to see people poke holes in my logic so I can patch them up. https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/az-existentials/proposals/XXXX-enhanced-existentials.md
>>> 
>>> I think that *all* methods should be available - at least in principle - with associated types 
>>> - replaced by their upper bounds (i.e. Any if no constraints have been given either by the protocol definition itself or th existential) if in covariant position and 
>>> - replaced by their lower bounds if in contravariant position
>>> 
>>> As it is not possible to define lower bounds in Swift, the lower bounds are always the bottom type (called `Nothing` in Swift and not be confused with optionals). The bottom type has no members and therefore a method referencing that type cannot be called and is effectively not available.
>> 
>> Called `Nothing` in Swift?  Where do you get that?  `func foo(s: Nothing) {}` gives me “use of undeclared type `Nothing`”.  If Swift had a bottom type wouldn’t we be able to declare a function accepting an argument of type `Nothing` (we could just never call it because we couldn’t construct an argument).
> 
> oops, sorry, I had wanted to type „called `Nothing` in Scala“ :-)

Lol that makes more sense. :)

> 
> -Thorsten
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Thorsten 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Austin
>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 22, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Russ Bishop via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 17, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree with this. If we're certain we should reskin protocol<> as Any<>, we should frontload that change—in addition to affecting source code, it'd also influence the runtime behavior of type printing/parsing, which can't be statically migrated in the future. I think any discussion of extending existentials has to be considered out of scope for Swift 3, though, so the Any rename deserves its own proposal.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Joe
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Its really unfortunate that the generics work is probably going to be deferred. When you really dive in to protocol-oriented programming and designing frameworks to be native Swift (taking advantage of Swift features) the existential problem comes up a lot and leads to sub-optimal designs, abandonment of type safety, or gobs of boilerplate.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Russ
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160523/01e7ef03/attachment.html>