Rejecting "any" as bounded type name?

[Brian Goetz]

It's a fine idea.  (Except that its syntax, and we're at least a year 
away from being ready to talk syntax.  Once we clear the several hundred 
much harder problems between here and there, we can rotate back to syntax.)

On 7/9/2015 12:13 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> I know "any" is going to be a context-sensitive keyword, but I wonder if
> there is merit in restricting "any" as a name of a bounded type name?
>
> I don't see much comprehension value in seeing (1) List<any any> or (2)
> List<any> without specialization. I truly dislike syntax puzzlers, and I
> think my idea would help readability and eliminate gotchas. Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>