Sure, here's the start of the thread: https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151207/001856.html <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151207/001856.html>
> On Jan 3, 2016, at 9:10 PM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jan 3, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Drew Crawford <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
