> On Jan 4, 2017, at 9:19 PM, David Sweeris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2017, at 20:48, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> Yeah. I'm less sure about the other enhancements to existentials fitting
>> into Swift 4, e.g., the creation of existentials for protocols with
>> associated types. Although important, it's a big feature that will take a
>> bunch of design and implementation time, and I'm leery of accepting
>> something that we might not actually be able to achieve.
>
> If it's a feature we know we want, it seems that nailing the syntax down,
> even if we know there isn't time to actually fully implement it in 4.0, would
> be beneficial simply to prevent it from being a source-breaking change in 4.1.
Well, there is an opportunity cost to designing something that you know won’t
get implemented. That said, I won’t try to actually stop anyone from discussing
such a much-needed feature; I just might not participate much.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
