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

[Adrian Zubarev]

Something like type<…> was considered at the very start of the whole discussion (in this thread), but it does not solve the meaning of an existential type and also might lead to even more confusion.

From my perspective I wouldn’t use parentheses here because it looks more like an init without any label Type.init(…) or Type(…). I could live with Any[…] but this doesn’t look shiny and Swifty to me. Thats only my personal view. ;)



-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 26. Mai 2016 bei 19:48:04, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution (swift-evolution at swift.org) schrieb:

Don't think {} is better here, as they also have "established meaning in  
Swift today".

How about just Type(P1 & P2 | P3) - as IMO we can think of such  
construction as "creation" of new type and `P1 & P2 | P3` could be treated  
as parameters to initializer.

func f(t: Type(P1 & P2 | P3)) {..}


On 26.05.2016 20:32, L. Mihalkovic via swift-evolution wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160526/7e3453c1/attachment.html>