> On May 17, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Austin Zheng <austinzh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think this is also probably the best approach. Reskin protocol<> so people > can fix their code when 3.0 hits, and then extend its functionality in an > additive way. > > Joe, given that this counts as part of "generics and ABI", is it acceptable > to continue discussion? Or should all of this be tabled until August?
IMO, discussion on the list is fine, though most of us are probably too busy to deeply participate right now, and any submitted proposals are likely to be deferred until after Swift 3 wraps up. -Joe > Austin > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Joe Groff <jgr...@apple.com> wrote: > > > On May 17, 2016, at 1:27 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > > >> On May 17, 2016, at 3:06 PM, Austin Zheng <austinzh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I'm honestly not sure it makes sense to introduce a proposal just for > >> expressing <Class, Protocol, Protocol> style requirements, and then trying > >> to retrofit fuller support for other existentials onto it. I would prefer > >> that the 'basic package' of existential cases be considered together as a > >> single proposal, unless a core team member expresses their preference > >> otherwise. > > > > It also renames protocol<> to Any, but fair enough. > > > > One reason to keep it separate is that the rename is a breaking change and > > we should really try to get that into Swift 3. Generalizing existentials > > is an additive change. I would love to have that in Swift 3 as well, but > > if it’s not going to make it I don’t think it should hold back the smaller > > change which is a breaking change. > > > > Doug, any opinion on this? > > I agree with this. If we're certain we should reskin protocol<> as Any<>, we > should frontload that change—in addition to affecting source code, it'd also > influence the runtime behavior of type printing/parsing, which can't be > statically migrated in the future. I think any discussion of extending > existentials has to be considered out of scope for Swift 3, though, so the > Any rename deserves its own proposal. > > -Joe > _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
