> Am 11.06.2016 um 14:44 schrieb Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com>:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jun 11, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Am 11.06.2016 um 14:23 schrieb Brent Royal-Gordon <br...@architechies.com>:
>>>>
>>>> The only magic would be that all type definitions (`protocol` etc.) which
>>>> do not give a supertype they conform to, will implicitly conform to `Any`,
>>>> i.e.
>>>>
>>>> protocol Foo { … }
>>>>
>>>> means
>>>>
>>>> protocol Foo : Any { … }
>>>
>>> Any is also the supertype of all structural types, and structural types
>>> cannot conform to protocols.
>>
>> AFAIK Swift does not support structural types and I am not sure whether we
>> should change that. In that case `Any` would become magic, yes.
>
> Functions and tuples are structural types, although it is probably possible
> to make tuples syntactic sugar for a Tuple type of we get the necessary
> variadic generics support.
That's right, I forgot about them. Still I'd prefer the magic of having on type
being the top type to having some syntax which does not work for structural
types either and derive a top type from it.
-Thorsten
>
>>
>> -Thorsten
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
