Sent from my iPad
> On May 17, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd like to take a shot at writing such a proposal. At some point improved > existential support will need to go through review, so we might as well. > Really happy to see this get started. I'm willing to help if you need it... > Austin > >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
