Yep. I also remain against this syntax, primarily for reasons of learnability.
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 08:25, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm sure the list is getting sick of me making this point over and > over again :), so I'll only do it one more time: I find the lack of > delimiters far worse in terms of readability for type expressions of > any appreciable complexity than any number of `Any<>` tokens. In fact, > I'm a bit surprised the core team decided to go in this direction, > given their stance on parentheses for function types, and replacing > operators like "&&" or "||" with "and" or "or". I respect their > decision, though. > > On 6/2/16, Thorsten Seitz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> Am 02.06.2016 um 07:42 schrieb Austin Zheng via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]>: >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> 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. >> >> I'm very happy with using `&` as I find this very readable. >> I would prefer not having to wrap them into `Any<>`. While I can image >> `Any<>`, or rather `any<>`, for existentials with `where` clauses, I would >> absolutely hate having to wrap all existentials into that which would >> introduce a lot of noise. >> >>> >>> 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. >> >> If `P` is an existential there is no problem either, isn't it? No need to >> require `Any<P>`. >> >> >> >>> >>> - 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). >> >> Far too much noise! >> >> >>> >>> - 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. >> >> I think markers are only needed if a `where` clause is present and probably >> not even then. >> >> -Thorsten >> >> >>> >>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
