+1 for breaking it into manageable pieces so we can get moving on any design tweaks that need to happen and start implementing. This seems to be holding up a lot of good proposals.
Thanks, Jon > On Jan 17, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:21 PM, David Hart <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
