Sorry, you're right about the timeframe. The timeframe I was looking at was for the DP release, not the final release.
What I was thinking of was Joe Groff's comment in the other thread: "I think any discussion of extending existentials has to be considered out of scope for Swift 3, though, so the Any rename deserves its own proposal." This proposal is in light of that comment. Austin > On May 19, 2016, at 12:26 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is it really in a month? Who said that? Chris told everyone that until August > we can still talk about changes for Swift 3. The evolution repository says > Swift 3 will drop late this year not mid. But it’s the core team to decide > which proposals they would prefer. This one would be way easier to complete > until Swift 3, but it also implies that my and your proposal should be > accepted/deffered for Swift 3.x. Otherwise this would be strange just to > rename protocol<> to Any<> and not to accept the enhancement of it. :D > > -- > Adrian Zubarev > Sent with Airmail > > Am 19. Mai 2016 bei 09:18:43, Austin Zheng ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>) schrieb: > >> I've come to the conclusion that the best course of action is to propose >> this syntax-only change for Swift 3, and then advance the generalized >> existential proposal after Swift 3 ships. You can ask the reviewers to >> consider your proposal instead of this one, but given that the Swift 3 >> release date is in a month I don't think it's likely that anything more >> substantial than this will be accepted. You are welcome to try, of course. >> >> (response inline, below) >> >>> On May 19, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Austin do we really need this 3rd proposal? This makes my original one >>> really a waste of time. I was trying to solve >>> https://openradar.appspot.com/20990743 >>> <https://openradar.appspot.com/20990743> with the original `Any<>` proposal >>> when Swift 3 ships. Your other proposal would enhance it without >>> introducing breaking changes. >>> >>>> To that end, I’d suggest Any<>,Any<Any, XX>, and Any<Any<XX>> all cause >>>> warnings. >>> >>> Why would these cause warnings? >>> >>> func foo(any: protocol<>) >>> >>> func foo(any: protocol<Any>) >>> >>> func foo(any: protocol<Any, ProtocolA>) >>> >>> func foo(any: protocol<ProtocolA>) >>> >>> Everything is already fine today. >>> >>> >> >> I agree, adding new warnings is out of the scope of this proposal. >> >>> -- >>> Adrian Zubarev >>> Sent with Airmail >>> >>> Am 19. Mai 2016 bei 08:55:54, David Waite via swift-evolution >>> ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>) schrieb: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> To that end, I’d suggest Any<>,Any<Any, XX>, and Any<Any<XX>> all cause >>>> warnings. >>>> >>>> -DW >>>> >>>> > On May 19, 2016, at 12:43 AM, Austin Zheng <[email protected] >>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > 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. >>>> > >>>> > Austin >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> On May 18, 2016, at 11:33 PM, Colin Barrett <[email protected] >>>> >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> 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). >>>> >> >>>> >> -Colin (via thumbs) >>>> >> >>>> >>> On May 19, 2016, at 1:58 AM, Austin Zheng <[email protected] >>>> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> - 'Any<>' should be allowed. You can currently use 'protocol<>' in >>>> >>> your code instead of 'Any'. >>>> > >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
