> On Nov 21, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 21, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Tony Allevato <tony.allev...@gmail.com > <mailto:tony.allev...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Does that mean that once structural types can conform to protocols, would >> the core team want to remove Optional as a nominal type and just use “T?”? > > Yes; at least, it’s a direction we’ve discussed a number of times. > >> Or has that ship sailed because of source compatibility and you just don’t >> want to introduce any new nominals that shadow structurals? > > typealias Optional<T> = T? > > Should address source compatibility.
Or alternatively, one could decide to make the generics system *only and forever* work on nominal types, and make the syntactic sugar just be sugar for named types like Swift.Tuple, Function, and Optional. Either design could work. -Chris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
