Sent from my iPad
> On May 17, 2016, at 1:02 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > >>> On May 17, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Adrian Zubarev >>> <adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com> wrote: >>> >>> You don’t seem to be tackling the case of “A Collection whose Element type >>> is String”. If we’re generalizing the current “protocol<>” notion, why not >>> make it as powerful as a generic signature, with the ability to specify >>> same-type constraints and conformances on associated types? >>> >>> - Doug >> >> Which part of the manifesto did I left out? ^^ Could you provide a quick >> pseudo code example? >> >> Do you mean something like `Any<Collection where Element == String>`? I’m >> not sure where I should consider such a scenario, maybe at future directions? > > That’s the part I’m referring to, yes. I just realized that your proposal > isn’t lifting the restrictions on protocols with Self types or associated > types, so my suggestion doesn’t make sense for your proposal without a > significant increase in scope. Another related issue is having the Any type conform to all of the protocols it contains (should be easier than here than in the general case since there are no Self or associated types). Would that be appropriate to add or do you think that would be a separate proposal? > > - Doug > > _______________________________________________ > 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
