If anyone is interested, I started a draft proposal with detailed design here: https://github.com/DevAndArtist/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/nnnn-merging-types-with-protocols.md
I didn’t post it here, because it is a bit huge and could lose its markdown formats. `all<>` is always bold, because this is what we are interested in, but I provided all possible combinations if the other formats would exists (at least all combinations I could think of, anything else is derived from these). `class<>` etc. can be seen as a future direction (I would say), otherwise this would easily become out of scope for Swift 3. (I will move `class<>` etc. from detailed design to future direction later.) I’d love to hear your feedback and strong arguments for the motivation part I could include into this proposal. -- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 13. Mai 2016 bei 23:16:20, Vladimir.S (sva...@gmail.com) schrieb: You asked for any example, I give it to you ;-) (as I said, it is syntactical, just to show that such struct<> can be used to test some struct for conforming to protocol, that was not conformed at writing time) Probably we can invent useful examples for this struct<> - but I don't believe it will be introduced in Swift ;-) On 13.05.2016 22:14, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution wrote: > Can we really do that? I mean, I thought about that myself but I came to > the conclusion that this scenario is like: I was to lazy to couple this > structs to my library protocols, will you do that for me?
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
