Sent from my iPad
> On May 20, 2016, at 5:18 AM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Am 18.05.2016 um 23:17 schrieb Austin Zheng via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]>: >> >> The order does not affect the semantic meaning of the existential. There is >> a section in the proposal on how existentials are conceptually 'reduced' >> from whatever form they take when the programmer types them in, please read >> it. I am not proposing a macro system. The compiler does not do textual >> replacement in order to flatten nested existential definitions. >> >> This is also why it makes no sense to have a generic "Any<T, U>", because >> such a type is identical to "Any<U, T>", which is not true for any other >> generic type or aggregate type in Swift. > > Shouldn’t that be a reason to use `any<>` (using a keyword `any`) instead of > `Any<>`? Because `Any<>` would just look like/be a generic type with all > normal expectations, e.g. `Any<T, U>` would *not* be equal to `Any<U, T>` > which is different behavior from `protocol<>`, as I can write > > func foo(p: protocol<A, B>) -> protocol<B, A> { > return p > } > This is a very good point. +1 to the idea of lowercasing 'any'. > -Thorsten > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
