Bikeshedding: Is it grammatically possible (or even desirable) to skip the
“any” token and just have something like this:
var view: <UIView, SomeProtocol>
init(view: <UIView, SomeProtocol>) {}
if let mergedValue = button as? <UIView, SomeProtocol> {}
let a: <UIScrollView, <UITableView, any<UIView, ProtocolA>>>
I’m not even sure there’s a huge advantage to leaving it out (avoid capturing a
new keyword?) - just thought I’d ask!
And while I’m here asking about (likely very silly) things, I wanted to note
that the < and > symbols are heavily ingrained as generics to me and this seems
like.. not really the same kind of thing? Has the potential for confusion about
this been considered at all? It’s almost like what is being expressed is,
“here’s a set/collection of requirements” and, in that case, it almost seems
like it should look more like an array:
var view: [UIView, SomeProtocol]
init(view: [UIView, SomeProtocol]) {}
if let mergedValue = button as? [UIView, SomeProtocol] {}
let a: [UIScrollView, [UITableView, [UIView, ProtocolA]]]
Would that lead to a better syntax if such things as generic protocols were
possible (assuming they are even desirable)? Example:
let a: [UIView, MyProtocol<Int>]
l8r
Sean - who might just be confused about things due to a lack of attention
spa... ooh shiny things!
> On May 23, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Fixed a few things:
> https://github.com/DevAndArtist/swift-evolution/blob/classes_in_any_existential/proposals/nnnn-classes-in-any-existential.md
>
> Tell me if I left out any topic or detail.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 23. Mai 2016 bei 12:08:45, Adrian Zubarev
> (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb:
>
>> I’ll fix that. I also forgot to change Impact on existing code section. I’ll
>> do that when Austin had time to look at it.
>>
>> This proposal will break protocol A: class {} if we get protocol A:
>> Any<class> {} as replacement.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adrian Zubarev
>> Sent with Airmail
>>
>> Am 23. Mai 2016 bei 02:52:31, Matthew Johnson (matt...@anandabits.com)
>> schrieb:
>>
>>> Looks pretty good. Just one minor correction.
>>>
>>> Under not valid examples that may be supported in the future you have this:
>>>
>>> extension A where Self == UIView
>>>
>>>
>>> Where you should have this:
>>>
>>> extension A where Self : UIView
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On May 21, 2016, at 7:42 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Proposal was updated as an enhancement proposal to SE–0095. You can read
>>>> the new draft here:
>>>>
>>>> •
>>>> https://github.com/DevAndArtist/swift-evolution/blob/classes_in_any_existential/proposals/nnnn-classes-in-any-existential.md
>>>> @Austin: I used some peaces of your enhancement proposal and you’re
>>>> co-author to this proposal now. If you want to polish something feel free
>>>> to submit a PR.
>>>>
>>>> • What else do we need in this proposal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Adrian Zubarev
>>>> Sent with Airmail
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
