> On May 17, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Adrian Zubarev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You don’t seem to be tackling the case of “A Collection whose Element type
>> is String”. If we’re generalizing the current “protocol<>” notion, why not
>> make it as powerful as a generic signature, with the ability to specify
>> same-type constraints and conformances on associated types?
>>
>> - Doug
>
> Which part of the manifesto did I left out? ^^ Could you provide a quick
> pseudo code example?
>
> Do you mean something like `Any<Collection where Element == String>`? I’m not
> sure where I should consider such a scenario, maybe at future directions?
That’s the part I’m referring to, yes. I just realized that your proposal isn’t
lifting the restrictions on protocols with Self types or associated types, so
my suggestion doesn’t make sense for your proposal without a significant
increase in scope.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
