> It seems like a lot of you are just trying to make different syntaxes for
> generic protocols, which I’m pretty sure was never the concern about them? We
> already have reasonable prior art here from the syntax of generic structs.
yeah, this discussion has gotten much bigger than I expected:
Just add the common generic-syntax to protocols, and let somebody do the real
work ;-).
Stuff like multi-conformance might be useful for some people, but who actually
misses it now?
As long as I can write
SomeProtocol<T> instead of creating SomeProtocolInt, SomeProtocolString and
SomeProtocolWhatever imho there would already be a huge benefit.
To make things simpler, it would even be feasible to forbid associated types in
generic protocols (if this helps):
As soon as associated types are in the mix, I can't create Set<SomeProtocol<T>>
(just an example) anymore, so I can turn the parameter into an associated type
as well.
- Tino
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
