On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2016, at 5:13 PM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> wrote: > > > Any proposal that expands the power of generic programming gets an almost > automatic +1 from me. > > I can't think of any circumstances in which I wouldn't want to use ":==" > instead of ":". Are there any downsides to expanding ":" to mean what ":==" > does? > > Incidentally, I kinda thought things either already worked like this, or > would work like this after generics were "completed", but I can't tell you > why I thought that. > > > Me neither, but the last time I proposed that, people stated that there > were some cases where this could not work. No concrete examples were given, > but I assume it probably has something to do with associated type > wackiness. :== seems like a workable compromise to me. > If an existential of a protocol P doesn't conform to itself, what can you do inside the body of a generic function that has a generic constraint specified with `:==`? In other words, what would we know about what's in common between such an existential of a protocol and types that conform to the protocol? https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/ > Week-of-Mon-20160523/019510.html > > Charles > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
