Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All review feedback should be either on this forum thread or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to me as the review manager by email or DM. When contacting the review manager directly, please put "SE-0521" in the subject line.
What goes into a review?
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
What is your evaluation of the proposal?
Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
More information about the Swift evolution process is available at:
Very glad to see this one, it's been a constant annoyance for me personally, writing a lot of some/any optional parameters...
Migration to this might be held up a bit in libraries needing to compile on older Swifts for a while, like the package ecosystem, however it's a beneficial change overall IMHO.
I was briefly wondering if there's any confusion that might arise with typealiases like typealias Kappa = any P but AFAICS this doesn't really change much here. I.e. Kappa? would be (any P)?, right?
I know we want to narrowly scope this, but I do wonder if making any ~Copyable? 'just work' in the same release (i.e., also rolling in support for ~) would make for a nicer resting place.
Having just migrated a fairly large code base to more modern Swift including ExistentialAny, I can confidently say that omitting these parentheses would be very welcome! Every time I wrote them, I asked myself what clarity they are supposed bring (although IIRC, the original proposal about this topic already mentioned that omitting them would be future direction).
