a Pestov via swift-users <
swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
Hi Steven,
On Jun 19, 2017, at 11:44 AM, Steven Brunwasser via swift-users <
swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
Is this error intentional, or a bug?
It’s intentional. We could add support for this as an extra bit of sugar,
but note t
Is this error intentional, or a bug?
protocol A {}
protocol B {}
typealias C = A & B // valid
extension C {} // Error: Non-nominal type 'C' (aka 'A & B') cannot be
extended
extension A where Self: B {} // valid
struct Foo: C {} // valid
Since extension A where Self: B is the same as
r {
> typealias Container = A
> }
>
> struct BuzzImpl: Buzz {} // *error: type ‘BuzzImpl' does not conform to
> protocol ‘Buzz'*
>
> On May 31, 2017 at 4:02:43 PM, Slava Pestov (spes...@apple.com) wrote:
>
> Can you give an example of a problematic name collision? Does fully
‘BuzzImpl' does not conform to
protocol ‘Buzz'*
On May 31, 2017 at 4:02:43 PM, Slava Pestov (spes...@apple.com) wrote:
Can you give an example of a problematic name collision? Does fully
qualifying names not help?
Slava
On May 31, 2017, at 4:01 PM, Steven Brunwasser via swift-users <
swift-us
Hi,
I have a library which uses a few generic protocols with identically named
associated types that may not always be specified identically by
implementors.
protocol Foo {
associatedtype Container
associatedtype Element
}
protocol Bar {
associatedtype Container
associatedtype Element
}
struct
