So basically everyone start to like by the core team suggested `Any<>` name of the proposed mechanism. I’ll rename it when I get home. ;)
I don't think Either is a good name. That implies 2 cases (either this or that). Maybe 'OneOf' would be better. Since that might be or be not a different proposal some day I guess we’d be safe to call it `OneOf` for the time being. Would you mind to go over the rules I suggested? Do we need the ability to provide multiple reference/value types? I’d say no we don’t, to reduce confusion (see my proposal). https://github.com/DevAndArtist/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/nnnn-mechanism-to-combine-types-and-protocols.md -- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 17. Mai 2016 bei 15:34:10, Matthew Johnson (matt...@anandabits.com) schrieb: Sent from my iPad On May 17, 2016, at 5:12 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: 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<…>`. I agree with Brent's concept of Any. That feels Swifty, following the convention established by the type-erasing wrappers currently in the standard library. I don't think Either is a good name. That implies 2 cases (either this or that). Maybe 'OneOf' would be better. >> 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
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
