Can I say that I dearly miss the old Any<> syntax? Oh well... Sent from my iPhone
> On 29 Jan 2017, at 18:41, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
