[swift-evolution] [Returned for Revision] SE-0095: Replace protocol<P1, P2> syntax with Any<P1, P2>
tseitz42 at icloud.com
Thu Jun 2 10:14:32 CDT 2016
> Am 02.06.2016 um 07:42 schrieb Austin Zheng via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>:
> I put together a PR with a revised proposal containing the core team's recommended approach. If anyone is curious they can see it here: https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/ef6adbe0fe09bff6c44c6aa9d73ee407629235ce/proposals/0095-any-as-existential.md
> Since this is the de-facto second round discussion thread, I'll start with my personal opinion (which is *not* reflected in the PR): the '&' separators in lieu of commas are a good idea, but I would still prefer the types to be wrapped in "Any<>", at least when being used as existentials.
I'm very happy with using `&` as I find this very readable.
I would prefer not having to wrap them into `Any<>`. While I can image `Any<>`, or rather `any<>`, for existentials with `where` clauses, I would absolutely hate having to wrap all existentials into that which would introduce a lot of noise.
> My reasons:
> - Jordan Rose brought up a good point in one of the discussion threads today: a resilience goal is to allow a library to add an associated type to a protocol that had none and not have it break user code. If this is true whatever syntax is used for existentials in Swift 3 should be a valid subset of the generalized existential syntax used to describe protocol compositions with no associated types.
If `P` is an existential there is no problem either, isn't it? No need to require `Any<P>`.
> - I would rather have "Any<>" be used consistently across all existential types eventually than have it only be used for (e.g.) existential types with `where` constraints, or allowing two different representations of the same existential type (one with Any, and one without).
Far too much noise!
> - I think any generalized existential syntax without delimiting markers (like angle braces) is harder to read than syntax with such markers, so I would prefer a design with those markers.
I think markers are only needed if a `where` clause is present and probably not even then.
>>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:53 PM, Austin Zheng <austinzheng at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This was indeed a very thorough review by the core team. I'll prepare a v2 proposal with this feedback taken into account so we can continue moving things along.
>>> One quick question - is making whatever syntax is chosen for Swift 3 "forward-compatible" with a future generalized existential feature a concern?
>> Yes it is a concern, but we assume that the “X & Y” syntax will always be accepted going forward, as sugar for the more general feature that is yet to be designed.
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution