But don't you mean the union type of all possible Collection types when you write Any<Collection>?
I suggested `all<>` for the intersection type, and `any<>` for the union type, so that would be the same, wouldn't it? -Thorsten Am 17.05.2016 um 07:10 schrieb Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org>: >> We've been over this a few times before on the list. I personally like >> naming this thing "Any<…>" in the same vein as "AnyObject", "AnyClass", and >> "AnySequence". I also see Thorsten (and in the past Brent's?) argument for >> calling it "all" or "All", because it's enforcing multiple constraints. > > I have suggested `all<>` in the past, but I now favor `Any`, because that > allows it to be unified with the universal supertype `Any`, `Any<class>`, and > things like `Any<Collection>` to forge the One Existential Syntax to rule > them all. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
