This is called generalized existentials. It is included in the Generic
Manifesto, has been discussed quite a few times with long email chains before,
and spawned the change to the `protocol<>` syntax as kinda a precursor. It
would be surprised if Swift 4 Phase 2 doesn't have it given its popularity.
Regards
Anders
> On 2 Dec 2016, at 20:13, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 2, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> I just overlooked that the subsection about generic protocols was inside the
>> Unlikely section.
>>
>> The problem is that I need a way to refer to a function with a specific
>> name. Plus the connection type has to have a specific API, like having a
>> DispatchQueue and know the router object if there is any (sounds like a
>> protocol right?!). The function reference should also keep the connection
>> object alive with a strong reference.
>>
>> associatedtype does not solve that problem for me.
>>
>> I clearly see that generic protocols overlap with associatedtype but
>> couldn’t we find a compromise here? For instance like Chris Lattner
>> introduced generic type aliases without the ability of constants.
>>
>
> Why don’t we just use angle brackets to specify associated types? Protocols
> aren’t using them for anything anyway. Then you could:
>
> if let someSequence as? Sequence<Iterator.Element == Int> { // do something }
>
> which would form a nice parallel to the syntax for casting things to generic
> types.
>
> 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
