Excellent. I put together a PR with a revised proposal containing the core team's recommended approach. If anyone is curious they can see it here: https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/ef6adbe0fe09bff6c44c6aa9d73ee407629235ce/proposals/0095-any-as-existential.md <https://github.com/austinzheng/swift-evolution/blob/ef6adbe0fe09bff6c44c6aa9d73ee407629235ce/proposals/0095-any-as-existential.md>
Since this is the de-facto second round discussion thread, I'll start with my personal opinion (which is *not* reflected in the PR): the '&' separators in lieu of commas are a good idea, but I would still prefer the types to be wrapped in "Any<>", at least when being used as existentials. My reasons: - Jordan Rose brought up a good point in one of the discussion threads today: a resilience goal is to allow a library to add an associated type to a protocol that had none and not have it break user code. If this is true whatever syntax is used for existentials in Swift 3 should be a valid subset of the generalized existential syntax used to describe protocol compositions with no associated types. - I would rather have "Any<>" be used consistently across all existential types eventually than have it only be used for (e.g.) existential types with `where` constraints, or allowing two different representations of the same existential type (one with Any, and one without). - I think any generalized existential syntax without delimiting markers (like angle braces) is harder to read than syntax with such markers, so I would prefer a design with those markers. Best, Austin > On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:17 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:53 PM, Austin Zheng <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This was indeed a very thorough review by the core team. I'll prepare a v2 >> proposal with this feedback taken into account so we can continue moving >> things along. >> >> One quick question - is making whatever syntax is chosen for Swift 3 >> "forward-compatible" with a future generalized existential feature a concern? > > Yes it is a concern, but we assume that the “X & Y” syntax will always be > accepted going forward, as sugar for the more general feature that is yet to > be designed. > > -Chris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
