> On 7 Jan 2017, at 08:04, Russ Bishop via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 4, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Would love to see this come forward into discussion.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> - Doug
>
> By this are you referring to generalized existentials? If so I’ll say this is
> such a constant pain point and perverts so many API designs… not to mention
> vomiting AnyXYZ type-erased wrappers everywhere… In my completely
> non-authoritative personal opinion we shouldn’t ship Swift 4 without it :)
>
>
> Russ
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
There is one little thing we could do to make that easier to live with: we
could allow closure properties to satisfy function requirements on protocols.
It’s on my wishlist of things to propose in phase 2:
https://gist.github.com/karwa/52b35a8a1f3bebc24264df5aeb2aa761#allow-function-requirements-in-protocols-to-be-satisfied-by-closure-type-properties
- Karl
<https://gist.github.com/karwa/52b35a8a1f3bebc24264df5aeb2aa761#allow-function-requirements-in-protocols-to-be-satisfied-by-closure-type-properties>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
