I probably won't have time, unfortunately. I think Adrian Zubarev (cc'ed) had a draft for this proposal at some point, so you might want to work with him.
Austin > On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:48 PM, David Hart <da...@hartbit.com> wrote: > > Austin? Do you want/have time to split out the Superclass + Protocol > proposal? If not, I can do it. Let me know. > David. > >> On 18 Jan 2017, at 00:27, Douglas Gregor <dgre...@apple.com >> <mailto:dgre...@apple.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:21 PM, David Hart <da...@hartbit.com >>> <mailto:da...@hartbit.com>> wrote: >>> >>> What do you think I should do then? Start an official proposal for >>> Superclass + Protocol because that’s all we can afford to have for Swift 4 >>> or bug Austin to resubmit his full proposal? >> >> I think it makes sense to split out the more-Swift-4-critical Superclass + >> Protocol bit, because it affects the import of Objective-C APIs in a manner >> that breaks source code. Reading the tea leaves, I can’t imagine having time >> to implement the full generalized-extensions proposal in Swift 4. >> >> - Doug >> >>> >>> David. >>> >>>> On 11 Jan 2017, at 00:09, Douglas Gregor <dgre...@apple.com >>>> <mailto:dgre...@apple.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Jan 8, 2017, at 8:21 AM, David Hart <da...@hartbit.com >>>>> <mailto:da...@hartbit.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8 Jan 2017, at 06:17, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jan 6, 2017, at 11:04 PM, Russ Bishop <xen...@gmail.com >>>>>>> <mailto:xen...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2017, at 8:48 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would love to see this come forward into discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Doug >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By this are you referring to generalized existentials? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. I actually prefer the term "generalized existentials". >>>>>> >>>>>>> If so I’ll say this is such a constant pain point and perverts so many >>>>>>> API designs… not to mention vomiting AnyXYZ type-erased wrappers >>>>>>> everywhere… In my completely non-authoritative personal opinion we >>>>>>> shouldn’t ship Swift 4 without it :) >>>>>> >>>>>> To be absolutely clear, I think this is an extremely important feature. >>>>>> It's also a significant undertaking in both design and implementation. >>>>> >>>>> Hasn't most of the design work already been done by Austin and all those >>>>> participating back then? What is missing? How much of the original >>>>> proposal is possible to implement in the Swift 4 (on top of Superclass + >>>>> Protocol)? Just want some hints on how to drive this so we can get as >>>>> much of generalized existentials for Swift 4. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, that’s fair: the proposal is in excellent shape, and I (personally) >>>> agree with most (maybe all) of the design decisions in it. >>>> >>>> - Doug >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
