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?
Thats exactly how I understand out situation by now. I was confused by
Thorsten's `intersection` first, but now I see that he meant the intersection
between dynamic type and the whole set of constraints provided by `All<…>`. I
thought about about the constraints union compared to the dynamic type, which
is most likely the same thing.
In my proposal I reserved the name `Any<>` for future directions, but noted
that we still might choose `Any<…>` for the proposed `All<…>` and then name
`Any<…>` described by Thorsten as `Either<…>`.
>> 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.
I considered `Any<>` as an alternative and personally I don’t have anything
against that little change. I still don’t like `AnyObject` because it uses
`Object` instead of `Class`, where `AnyClass` is `AnyObject.Type`. This is way
to confusing if you ask me. I’d rename both into `ClassInstance` == `AnyObject`
and `ClassType` == `AnyClass`. If Swift one day might introduce `struct` and
`enum` keywords that are generalized like `class` (could be) what name would
you choose? Compared to `AnyClass` typealias `AnyStruct` would be
`AnyXYZ.Type`. The only type I like which uses `Any` as its prefix is `Any`
itself.
But I guess this is something the core team will decide.
If there is no feedback towards the document I wrote anymore, I’ll submit a
pull request later this day. (Note: I’ll add some small changes in the
alternatives section about dropping the restriction of a single reference/value
type within the angle brackets).
--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
Am 17. Mai 2016 bei 07:17:21, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution
(swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
