> On Jan 3, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Drew Crawford <d...@sealedabstract.com> wrote: > >> Existentials for protocols with Self and / or associated type requirements >> would require bindings for Self and / or the associated type(s). At least >> when you use a member that contains Self and / or an associated type in its >> signature. So the previous example will always fail to compile. > > Not true. Joe Groff:
Can you point me to the source? I would like more context around these comments. > >> This seems like it would be addressed just by allowing Factory to be used as >> a dynamic type, with its Product type generalized to Any. We'll be set up to >> support that with some runtime work to store associated types in protocol >> witness tables (which is also necessary to fix cyclic conformances, one of >> our Swift 3 goals). > > >> Yeah, when generalizing a protocol type, we ought to be able to either >> generalize the associated types to their upper bounds, for use cases like >> yours, or constrain them to specific types, for the AnyGenerator<T> kind of >> case. _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
