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

Reply via email to