<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Austin do we really need this 3rd proposal? This makes my original one really a waste of time. I was trying to solve <a href="https://openradar.appspot.com/20990743">https://openradar.appspot.com/20990743</a> with the original `Any<>` proposal when Swift 3 ships. Your other proposal would enhance it without introducing breaking changes.</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><div><blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">To that end, I’d suggest Any<>,Any<Any, XX>, and Any<Any<XX>> all cause warnings.</blockquote></div><p>Why would these cause warnings?</p><p>func foo(any: protocol<>)</p><p>func foo(any: protocol<Any>)</p><p>func foo(any: protocol<Any, ProtocolA>)</p><p>func foo(any: protocol<ProtocolA>)</p><p>Everything is already fine today.</p></div> <br> <div id="bloop_sign_1463641039812684032" class="bloop_sign"><div style="font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:13px">-- <br>Adrian Zubarev<br>Sent with Airmail</div></div> <br><p class="airmail_on">Am 19. Mai 2016 bei 08:55:54, David Waite via swift-evolution (<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>) schrieb:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div><div></div><div>My feedback is that we should narrow what is acceptable for Any as much as possible, because relaxing restrictions in the future won’t break existing code.<br><br>To that end, I’d suggest Any<>,Any<Any, XX>, and Any<Any<XX>> all cause warnings.<br><br>-DW<br> <br>> On May 19, 2016, at 12:43 AM, Austin Zheng <austinzheng@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> <br>> Does anyone want to speak up in favor of 'Any<>'? The more I think about it the more I think 'Any' should just be the single, canonical form.<br>> <br>> Austin<br>> <br>> <br>>> On May 18, 2016, at 11:33 PM, Colin Barrett <colin@springsandstruts.com> wrote:<br>>> <br>>> There's no need for this, that's what I was trying to get across. It's (likely) a special case in the grammar right now. If we eliminate Any<>, from the point of view of syntax, both Any and Any<Foo, Bar> are just a built in type and normal application of generic arguments (to a built in type).<br>>> <br>>> -Colin (via thumbs)<br>>> <br>>>> On May 19, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Austin Zheng <austinzheng@gmail.com> wrote:<br>>>> <br>>>> - 'Any<>' should be allowed. You can currently use 'protocol<>' in your code instead of 'Any'.<br>> <br><br>_______________________________________________<br>swift-evolution mailing list<br>swift-evolution@swift.org<br>https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution<br></div></div></span></blockquote></body></html>