I’m not against Any<…> or something, I just wanted to throw this in the room because I’ve seen someone being confused about what Any<…> might mean. The generic manifesto has a nice wordplay that explains the true meaning: “Any type that conforms to … (all constraints) … .”
But someone might still think that this type awaits any type from within the angle brackets (something like oneOf<A, B>). -- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 26. Mai 2016 bei 19:15:19, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution ([email protected]) schrieb: on Thu May 26 2016, Adrian Zubarev <[email protected]> wrote: > There is great feedback going on here. I'd like to consider a few things here: > > * What if we name the whole thing `Existential<>` to sort out all > confusion? Some of us believe that “existential” is way too theoretical a word to force into the official lexicon of Swift. I think “Any<...>” is much more conceptually accessible. > > This would allow `typealias Any = Existential<>`. * Should > `protocol A: Any<class>` replace `protocol A: class`? Or at least > deprecate it. * Do we need `typealias AnyClass = Any<class>` or do we > want to use any class requirement existential directly? If second, we > will need to allow direct existential usage on protocols (right now we > only can use typealiases as a worksround). -- Dave _______________________________________________ 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
