Type declarations in protocols / protocols as namespaces?

[anandabits (Matthew Johnson)]

@DevAndArtist remember there is also a relevant sub thread in the Improving the UI of Generics thread:

Improving the UI of generics

The direction I have in mind is based on introducing existential for generic types (i.e. any Array). Here's a sketch of the space of extensions I envision as possible. We may not necessarily want to support everything I describe here, but it presents a holistic vision of what the type system might look like if we lifted as many limitations as possible. // extends existential and conforming types // // does not support protocol conformances (because it extends conforming types) // does not su…

Improving the UI of generics

I wonder if we should build on the any and some prefix syntax and use a prefix like meta (as a strawman): any T is the associated existential meta T is the metatype of T any meta T is the metatype of the associated existential any P is the existential for the protocol meta P is the protocol metatype any meta P is the metatype of the protocol existential I realized after posting it that my approach to solving the nesting issue depended on the fact that the name of the existential type m…

You may find other relevant threads in the cross references the forum automatically adds when a post is linked.