> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:21 PM, David Hart <[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?
I think it makes sense to split out the more-Swift-4-critical Superclass +
Protocol bit, because it affects the import of Objective-C APIs in a manner
that breaks source code. Reading the tea leaves, I can’t imagine having time to
implement the full generalized-extensions proposal in Swift 4.
- Doug
>
> 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
