> On Jan 3, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Антон Жилин via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > The problem with syntax of "existential protocol" and "protocol" is that the > first should actually be default, and easier to write. > > We should prefer static to dynamic.
These two statements seem to be in conflict: existentials create dynamic polymorphism, while generics create static polymorphism. > It is as if "structs" had to be declared as "static class", or "let" > variables as "const var". Shorter keywords should be used for enforcing good > practices. > Additionally, 95% of standard library protocols are actually "existential > protocols", or "protocols" in my notation. > > Next, I don't know any language which has "existential" keyword. Moreover, > "existential types" in Haskell mean means (roughly) "type that can hold value > of any instance of class with type erasure", and that is exactly what an > interface is in Swift. So, I think that if we will add "existential" keyword, > we would add it the other way: for dynamically dispatched types. > > Some other suggestions (imagine a table): > > statically dispatched - dynamically dispatched > protocol - interface > protocol - dynamic protocol > protocol - existential protocol > static protocol - dynamic protocol > trait - protocol > trait - interface > > I also personally like the "trait - protocol" naming. Traits are used to be > statically dispatched things in other languages, and protocols are > dynamically dispatched things from Objective-C. Actually, I'm satisfied with > any pair unless dynamic protocols get shorter names. > > P.S. I'll correct that Self issue, thanks! > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution -Dave
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
