<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 28, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Thorsten Seitz <<a href="mailto:tseitz42@icloud.com" class="">tseitz42@icloud.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>Austin raised the point (or reminded of Joe’s raising the point) of possible problems when returning constrained existentials from generic functions:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">func foo<P, Q>(p: P, q: Q) -> any<Collection where .Element == P> where P: Equatable { … }</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">would require parentheses when using `&` instead of any<></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">func foo<P, Q>(p: P, q: Q) -> (Collection where .Element == P) where P: Equatable { … }</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This would even be the case if there was no constraint on P:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">func foo<P, Q>(p: P, q: Q) -> (Collection where .Element == P) { … }</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">An alternative would be to use `with` for existentials instead of `where`:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">func foo<P, Q>(p: P, q: Q) -> Collection with .Element == P where P: Equatable { … }</div><div class=""> </div><div class="">But even then this would be more readable either with parentheses (now just as a matter of style) or a line break:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">func foo<P, Q>(p: P, q: Q) -> Collection with .Element == P </div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>where P: Equatable { … }</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="">-Thorsten</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>We could make parentheses optional in the general case, and just have them mandatory in the following situations:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- You want to nest an existential literal inside another existential literal:</div><div>let a : Protocol1, (Protocol2 where .Blah == Int), Protocol3 = foo()</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- You want to return an existential with more than one term and/or a where clause from a function that has a generic where clause</div><div>func foo<P, Q>(p: P, q: Q) -> (Collection with .Element == P) where P : Equatable { ... }</div><div><br class=""></div><div>- You want to use an existential as a function argument, and that existential has more than one term and/or a where clause</div><div>func foo(x: Protocol1, y: (Protocol2 where .Blah == Int), z: Protocol3) { ... }</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Would that be a reasonable compromise?</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Matthew</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class=""><div class=""></div><div class="">typealias P3Int = Protocol 3 where .Foo == Int</div><div class=""><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">let x : Protocol1, Protocol2, P3Int where Protocol2.Bar : Baz</div></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If you are writing the entire type in a single location I expect the conventional style to be like this:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class="">let x : Protocol1, Protocol2, Protocol 3 where Protocol2.Bar : Baz, Protocol3.Foo == Int</div></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">With all associated types constraints in a single `where` clause as we other places they are written in Swift.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Maybe I am wrong about that and a different conventional style would emerge (for example, where clauses clustered with the related protocol). </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But *requiring* parentheses is really orthogonal to the style issue of where and when it is considered *advisable* to use them.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Matthew</div></font></span><div class=""><div class="h5"><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I hope that explains my reasoning.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class="">Austin</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 27, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Matthew Johnson <<a href="mailto:matthew@anandabits.com" target="_blank" class="">matthew@anandabits.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><br class=""><br class="">Sent from my iPad</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><br class="">On May 27, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Austin Zheng <<a href="mailto:austinzheng@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">austinzheng@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><div class="">Here's a strawman idea.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What if we go with '&' and 'where', but we enclose the whole thing in parentheses?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(class & Protocol1 & Protocol2 where .Foo == Int, .Bar : Baz)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There are a couple of reasons I propose this syntax:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- It makes it very clear where the definition of the type begins and ends. I understand people really despise angle brackets, but I really want some way to visually delineate the boundaries of the type. Plus, I imagine it makes syntax a little easier to parse and preemptively forbids some ambiguities.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- It's a structural, not nominal, type, like a tuple, so it uses parens as well. This reserves "<" and ">" for generic types.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- The '&' is easily understood - "Protocol1" *and* "Protocol2". It's also a signal that order doesn't matter - just like how order matters with things that use commas, like argument lists, tuples, and array members, order doesn't generally matter with bitwise or logical 'and' operators.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- If we ever decide to have union types, we have a very elegant third form of nominal type syntax that naturally falls out: (MyClass1 | MyClass2 | MyClass3).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thoughts?</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><br class=""></div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" class="">Generally in favor. But I would not require the parentheses. I believe they would be allowed optionally automatically, just as (Int) is the same as Int (because single element tuples don't exist and the underlying type is used directly instead). It seems better to leave parentheses up to a matter of style.</span><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Austin</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 27, 2016, at 9:07 AM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 27.05.2016 um 16:54 schrieb Matthew Johnson <<a href="mailto:matthew@anandabits.com" target="_blank" class="">matthew@anandabits.com</a>>:</div><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><div class=""><br class="">On May 27, 2016, at 8:18 AM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">Personally I think `&` is more lightweight (and it is established in other languages like Ceylon and Typescript) and `where` is more expressive (and established in Swift for introducing constraints), so I would stay with these.</div></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><br class=""></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class="">I agree. If we can make `&` with `where` work syntactically it would be nice to go in this lighter weight direction. If we decide to do that the question then becomes what to do with `protocol`. Would it be feasible to replace it with `&` in Swift 3 if we decide on that direction?</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Yep. `protocol` should be replaced with `&` in that case.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Thorsten</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Thorsten<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 27.05.2016 um 14:34 schrieb Vladimir.S <<a href="mailto:svabox@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">svabox@gmail.com</a>>:</div><br class=""><div class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" class="">Btw, in case we have `where` keyword in syntax related to types/protocols (when defining constrains. and not some symbol like '>>'.. don't know, for example), why we can't have 'and' keyword also when discuss the syntax of type/protocol conjunction?</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" class="">I.e.</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" class="">let x: P and Q</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" class="">let x: P and Q where P.T == Q.T</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" class="">let x: P and Q and R</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" class="">or, for consistency, as I understand it, we should have</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" class="">let x: P & Q >> P.T == Q.T</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important" class="">On 27.05.2016 11:55, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution wrote:</span><br style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class=""><blockquote type="cite" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px" class="">We could just write<br class=""><br class="">let x: P & Q<br class="">instead of<br class="">let x: Any<P, Q><br class=""><br class="">let x: Collection where .Element: P<br class="">instead of<br class="">let x: Any<Collection where .Element: P><br class=""><br class="">let x: P & Q where P.T == Q.T<br class="">instead of<br class="">let x: Any<P, Q where P.T == Q.T><br class=""><br class="">let x: P & Q & R<br class="">instead of<br class="">let x: Any<P, Q, R><br class=""><br class="">let x: Collection<br class="">instead of<br class="">let x: Any<Collection><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">This would avoid the confusion of Any<T1, T2> being something completely<br class="">different than a generic type (i.e. order of T1, T2 does not matter whereas<br class="">for generic types it is essential).<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">-Thorsten<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Am 26.05.2016 um 20:11 schrieb Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution<br class=""><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><span class=""> </span><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org</a>>>:<br class=""><br class="">Something like |type<…>| was considered at the very start of the whole<br class="">discussion (in this thread<br class=""><<a href="https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160502/016523.html" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160502/016523.html</a>>),<br class="">but it does not solve the meaning of an existential type and also might<br class="">lead to even more confusion.<br class=""><br class="">From my perspective I wouldn’t use parentheses here because it looks more<br class="">like an init without any label |Type.init(…)| or |Type(…)|. I could live<br class="">with |Any[…]| but this doesn’t look shiny and Swifty to me. Thats only my<br class="">personal view. ;)<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">--<br class="">Adrian Zubarev<br class="">Sent with Airmail<br class=""><br class="">Am 26. Mai 2016 bei 19:48:04, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution<br class="">(<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><span class=""> </span><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org</a>>) schrieb:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Don't think {} is better here, as they also have "established meaning in<br class="">Swift today".<br class=""><br class="">How about just Type(P1 & P2 | P3) - as IMO we can think of such<br class="">construction as "creation" of new type and `P1 & P2 | P3` could be treated<br class="">as parameters to initializer.<br class=""><br class="">func f(t: Type(P1 & P2 | P3)) {..}<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On 26.05.2016 20:32, L. Mihalkovic via swift-evolution wrote:<br class="">> 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>.<br class="">><br class="">>> On May 26, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><span class=""> </span><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org</a>>> wrote:<br class="">>><br class="">>><br class="">>>> on Thu May 26 2016, Adrian Zubarev <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><span class=""> </span><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org</a>>> wrote:<br class="">>>><br class="">>>> There is great feedback going on here. I'd like to consider a few things here:<br class="">>>><br class="">>>> * What if we name the whole thing `Existential<>` to sort out all<br class="">>>> confusion?<br class="">>><br class="">>> Some of us believe that “existential” is way too theoretical a word to<br class="">>> force into the official lexicon of Swift. I think “Any<...>” is much<br class="">>> more conceptually accessible.<br class="">>><br class="">>>><br class="">>>> This would allow `typealias Any = Existential<>`. * Should<br class="">>>> `protocol A: Any<class>` replace `protocol A: class`? Or at least<br class="">>>> deprecate it. * Do we need `typealias AnyClass = Any<class>` or do we<br class="">>>> want to use any class requirement existential directly? If second, we<br class="">>>> will need to allow direct existential usage on protocols (right now we<br class="">>>> only can use typealiases as a worksround).<br class="">>><br class="">>> --<br class="">>> Dave<br class="">>><br class="">>> _______________________________________________<br class="">>> swift-evolution mailing list<br class="">>><span class=""> </span><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><span class=""> </span><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org</a>><br class="">>><span class=""> </span><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br class="">> _______________________________________________<br class="">> swift-evolution mailing list<br class="">><span class=""> </span><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><span class=""> </span><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org</a>><br class="">><span class=""> </span><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br class="">><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><span class=""> </span><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org</a>><br class=""><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br class=""></blockquote><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><span class=""> </span><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org</a>><br class=""><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class=""><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class=""><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class=""><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>