I've been watching this thread and am happy to help if necessary, whatever the consensus is.
Austin > On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:21 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > What do you think I should do then? Start an official proposal for Superclass > + Protocol because that’s all we can afford to have for Swift 4 or bug Austin > to resubmit his full proposal? > > David. > >> On 11 Jan 2017, at 00:09, Douglas Gregor <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 8, 2017, at 8:21 AM, David Hart <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 8 Jan 2017, at 06:17, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Jan 6, 2017, at 11:04 PM, Russ Bishop <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 4, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >>>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
