[swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0089: Replace protocol<P1, P2> syntax with Any<P1, P2>

[L. Mihalkovic]

How about something like Type{P1 & P2 | P3}  the point being that "<...>" has an established meaning in Swift today which is not what is expressed in the "<P1,P2,P3>" contained inside Any<P1, P2,P3>.

> On May 26, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> on Thu May 26 2016, Adrian Zubarev <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> 
>> There is great feedback going on here. I'd like to consider a few things here:
>> 
>> * What if we name the whole thing `Existential<>` to sort out all
>> confusion?
> 
> Some of us believe that “existential” is way too theoretical a word to
> force into the official lexicon of Swift.  I think “Any<...>” is much
> more conceptually accessible.
> 
>> 
>>  This would allow `typealias Any = Existential<>`.  * Should
>> `protocol A: Any<class>` replace `protocol A: class`? Or at least
>> deprecate it.  * Do we need `typealias AnyClass = Any<class>` or do we
>> want to use any class requirement existential directly? If second, we
>> will need to allow direct existential usage on protocols (right now we
>> only can use typealiases as a worksround).
> 
> -- 
> Dave
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution