> On Jan 4, 2017, at 21:28, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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]> 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.
That's not a bad point. Ideally we'll either have the time to completely
implement it for 4.0, or "prove" it can be implemented later without risking
source-compatibility.
- Dave Sweeris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
