> On Jan 4, 2017, at 9:19 PM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 4, 2017, at 20:48, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > >> Yeah. I'm less sure about the other enhancements to existentials fitting >> into Swift 4, e.g., the creation of existentials for protocols with >> associated types. Although important, it's a big feature that will take a >> bunch of design and implementation time, and I'm leery of accepting >> something that we might not actually be able to achieve. > > If it's a feature we know we want, it seems that nailing the syntax down, > even if we know there isn't time to actually fully implement it in 4.0, would > be beneficial simply to prevent it from being a source-breaking change in 4.1.
Well, there is an opportunity cost to designing something that you know won’t get implemented. That said, I won’t try to actually stop anyone from discussing such a much-needed feature; I just might not participate much. - Doug
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution