For readability and specifically in this case, I think it does make sense IMHO.
On Sunday, April 3, 2016, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Andrey Tarantsov <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > Protocol requirements with default (no-op) implementations already satisfy > that design goal, no? > > > Chris, as we've discussed in a thread that I think got forked from this > one: > > Yes, they do technically, but it would be nice to both: > > 1) make it an obvious documented part of the signature, possibly including > the default return value > > 2) possibly make it less verbose by getting rid of the explicitly spelled > out protocol extension > > > Right, but “more is worse” when it comes to language design. Having a > "more general" facility that greatly overlaps with a “more narrow” facility > always makes us question whether it is worth the complexity to have both. > > -Chris > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
