<div dir="ltr">@Brent,<div><br></div><div>I don't want to derail this thread either.<br><div><br></div><div>If you want to post on the other thread your concerns I am happy to take a look.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div> -- Howard.</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 13 January 2016 at 17:42, Brent Royal-Gordon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brent@architechies.com" target="_blank">brent@architechies.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> I have put a proposal in for generic protocols and covariant generics:<br>
><br>
> [swift-evolution] Make generics covariant and add generics to protocols<br>
><br>
> This proposal requires that protocol functions are dynamically dispatched, i.e. it would require this change.<br>
<br>
</span>What you propose is a fairly serious redesign of how protocols handle related types; I'm trying to focus on changes that hopefully are relatively uncontroversial and mostly straightforwardly extend what currently exists.<br>
<br>
(Frankly, I'm also not in favor of replacing associated types, because I think they're a far better fit for the task than generics. But I don't want to derail this thread into a critique of your proposal.)<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Brent Royal-Gordon<br>
Architechies<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"> -- Howard.<br></div>
</div>