[Pitch][Bug?] Test for Anti-Conformance During Generics

Any/AnyObject are constraints for an existential container. Protocol conformances are also existential constraints, but not quite the same thing as Any/AnyObject.
  
Rather than adding negative constraints, I think we need a richer set of more specific positive constraints.
  
- Karl

···

  
On Aug 1, 2017 at 12:50 am, <Daryle Walker via swift-evolution (mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org)> wrote:
  
>
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 1:49 PM, Robert Widmann <rwidmann@apple.com (mailto:rwidmann@apple.com)> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > On Jul 31, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Daryle Walker via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org (mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org)> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Part of the response that closed [SR-5589] as “Won’t Do” was:
> >
> >
> >
>
>
  
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > AnyObject is no longer a protocol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Then, what is it?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Relevant https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/8749
>
  
So… it got moved one layer down of indirection?
  
Hmm, what would this mean for a similar “protocol”? One that has a member attached. (My “strong type-alias” proposal has all such named types derived from an “AnyAlternative” protocol, which derives from “RawRepresentable” and adds another associated type.)
  

  
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com

       _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Cookie Policy