> On Jan 8, 2017, at 8:21 AM, David Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 8 Jan 2017, at 06:17, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2017, at 11:04 PM, Russ Bishop <[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?
>>
>> Yes. I actually prefer the term "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 :)
>>
>> To be absolutely clear, I think this is an extremely important feature. It's
>> also a significant undertaking in both design and implementation.
>
> Hasn't most of the design work already been done by Austin and all those
> participating back then? What is missing? How much of the original proposal
> is possible to implement in the Swift 4 (on top of Superclass + Protocol)?
> Just want some hints on how to drive this so we can get as much of
> generalized existentials for Swift 4.
Yes, that’s fair: the proposal is in excellent shape, and I (personally) agree
with most (maybe all) of the design decisions in it.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
