In reply to: Why would you want to add all of these different formats where only one could serve them all. This is redundant in my opinion.
`struct<>` and `enum<>` would have same rules, only the first element would be a different value-type. I might consider this as an alternative. Correct me if I’m wrong with the redundancy. 'enum<>' might be valid, unless their functions (e.g. for 'init(rawValue: Int)' or 'allCases') are declared in explicit protocols which would implicitly cover enums and which other types could declare conformance to. 'struct<>' does seem redundant unless it becomes subtypeable. If you want a struct which conforms to several protocols, protocol<> already covers this. I know there's a discussion at the moment regarding the equivalent of an 'AnyObject' for value types, which might apply to this discussion, but I'm not sure how. A class in general would also a protocol<AnyObject, ...>. The benefit of 'type<>' is in its ability to extend the behaviours of several subclasses at once, e.g. type<UIViewController, UIScrollViewDelegate> covers all view controllers with scroll views, not just UITableViewController, UICollectionViewController, etc..
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
