How about something like Type{P1 & P2 | P3} the point being that "<...>" has
an established meaning in Swift today which is not what is expressed in the
"<P1,P2,P3>" contained inside Any<P1, P2,P3>.
> On May 26, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> 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
