> One more point around this comment. While `any<MyProtocol>` is a type `any` > is not a type. `any` is a kind of type. We have classes, structs, enums, and > existentials. We don’t capitalize `struct`, `class`, or `enum`. Why should > we capitalize `any` just because it is often going to be declared ad-hoc (and > again, I think it is worthwhile to give existential types a name in many > cases, just as we give other types a name — preferring structs to tuples, for > example). Making `any` lowercase emphasizes the fact that it is a kind of > type rather than a type.
The current `Any`, and the proposed `any<>` (and `any`, which I'm presuming is equivalent), *are* types. They are not categories of types like `class` or `struct` or `enum`; you can declare variables as them, you can cast to them, you can check if values match them. You probably ought to be able to take an `Any<Foo, Bar>.Type` and call a `Foo` or `Bar` initializer on it to get an `Any<Foo, Bar>` (although I don't know if Swift supports that right now). In short, you can do all the things with them that one would expect to do with a type. Because they are types. So if you're saying that `any<>`/`Any<>` is not a type, I think you're quite wrong. If you're saying that `any<>`/`Any<>` is a type but `any`/`Any` is not, then we disagree on my position that these should be equivalent. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
