The "class comes first" requirement made more sense when the proposed syntax was still "Any<T, U, V>", intentionally mirroring how the superclass and conformances are declared on a class declaration (the archives contain more detailed arguments, both pro and con). Now that the syntax is "T & U & V", I agree that privileging the class requirement is counterintuitive and probably unhelpful.
Austin > On Jan 29, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Matt Whiteside via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for writing this proposal David. > >> On Jan 29, 2017, at 10:13, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> As Matthew mentioned, the rules can certainly later be relaxed, but given >> that this proposal has the compiler generating fix-its for subclasses in >> second position, is there a reason other than stylistic for demanding >> MyClass & MyProtocol instead of MyProtocol & MyClass? >> >> From a naive perspective, it seems that if the compiler understands my >> meaning perfectly, it should just accept that spelling rather than complain. > > I had that thought too. Since ‘and’ is a symmetric operation, requiring the > class to be in the first position seems counter-intuitive. > > -Matt > > _______________________________________________ > 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
