Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

Here are a few thoughts on how I imagine these existentials to look like. // We now write the `where` clause all the way at the end. // SE-0142 does follow that route as well. // I think there is no need for a leading dot in existentials, similar to the where clause from SE-0142. typealias

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

Hi there, >From my current perspective, my draft is way to0 outdated and ugly. :D And I >myself will be very busy in the next two month, so please don’t count on me >for now. But I will follow the topic and write some feedback as good as I only can. --  Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

I probably won't have time, unfortunately. I think Adrian Zubarev (cc'ed) had a draft for this proposal at some point, so you might want to work with him. Austin > On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:48 PM, David Hart wrote: > > Austin? Do you want/have time to split out the Superclass

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

Austin? Do you want/have time to split out the Superclass + Protocol proposal? If not, I can do it. Let me know. David. > On 18 Jan 2017, at 00:27, Douglas Gregor wrote: > > >> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:21 PM, David Hart > >

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

+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 >

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:21 PM, David Hart 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

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

I've been watching this thread and am happy to help if necessary, whatever the consensus is. Austin > On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:21 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution > wrote: > > What do you think I should do then? Start an official proposal for Superclass > +

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

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? David. > On 11 Jan 2017, at 00:09, Douglas Gregor wrote: > > >> On Jan 8, 2017, at

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

Looking at that proposal on Austin’s Github, would its complete implementation require/allow for any type that’s known at runtime to be used like a type at compile time? So that these two blocks would both work? It seems like the runtime would be using the same technology, but it’s hard to

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

> On Jan 8, 2017, at 8:21 AM, David Hart wrote: > >> >> On 8 Jan 2017, at 06:17, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jan 6, 2017, at 11:04 PM, Russ Bishop wrote: >>> >>>

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

> On Jan 7, 2017, at 9:17 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 6, 2017, at 11:04 PM, Russ Bishop wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 4, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >>> wrote: >>>

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

> On 8 Jan 2017, at 06:17, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 6, 2017, at 11:04 PM, Russ Bishop wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 4, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >>>

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 6, 2017, at 11:04 PM, Russ Bishop wrote: > > >> On Jan 4, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Would love to see this come forward into discussion. >> >> Yeah. I'm less

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

> On 7 Jan 2017, at 08:04, Russ Bishop via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On Jan 4, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> Would love to see this come forward into discussion. >> >> Yeah. I'm

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

> On Jan 4, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > 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

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

> On Jan 4, 2017, at 21:28, Douglas Gregor wrote: > >> On Jan 4, 2017, at 9:19 PM, David Sweeris wrote: >> >> On Jan 4, 2017, at 20:48, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >>> Yeah. I'm less sure about the other

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

> On Jan 4, 2017, at 9:19 PM, David Sweeris wrote: > > > On Jan 4, 2017, at 20:48, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > > wrote: > >> Yeah. I'm less sure about the other enhancements to existentials fitting >>

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

> On Jan 4, 2017, at 20:48, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > wrote: > > 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

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Rod Brown via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> On 3 Jan 2017, at 11:33 pm, David Hart via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> Hello Mailing-list, >> >> I remember we discussed enhanced

Re: [swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

> On 3 Jan 2017, at 11:33 pm, David Hart via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Hello Mailing-list, > > I remember we discussed enhanced existentials heavily during the Swift 3 > timeframe but postponed it. I was wondering if we need to bring back for > discussion during

[swift-evolution] Enhanced Existentials

Hello Mailing-list, I remember we discussed enhanced existentials heavily during the Swift 3 timeframe but postponed it. I was wondering if we need to bring back for discussion during Phase 1 or Phase 2? For reference, here is the proposal which Austin Zhend wrote which represented the