on Wed Jun 08 2016, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Jun 8, 2016, at 13:16, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> on Wed Jun 08 2016, Thorsten Seitz > >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >>> Ah, thanks, I forgot! I still consider this a bug, though (will have >>> to read up again what the reasons are for that behavior). >> >> Yes, but in the case of the issue we're discussing, the choices are: >> >> 1. Omit from the existential's API any protocol requirements that depend >> on Self or associated types, in which case it *can't* conform to >> itself because it doesn't fulfill the requirements. >> >> 2. Erase type relationships and trap at runtime when they don't line up. >> >> Matthew has been arguing against #2, but you can't “fix the bug” without >> it. > > #1 has been my preference for a while as well, at least as a starting > point.
I should point out that with the resyntaxing of existentials to Any<Protocols...>, the idea that Collection's existential doesn't conform to Collection becomes far less absurd than it was, so maybe this is not so bad. -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
