> On Apr 7, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > One could perhaps work around (a), (b), and (d) by allowing compound > (function-like) names like tableView(_:viewFor:row:) for properties, and work > around (c) by allowing a method to satisfy the requirement for a read-only > property, but at this point you’ve invented more language hacks than the > existing @objc-only optional requirements. So, I don’t think there is a > solution here.
To me, compound names for closure properties and satisfying property requirements with methods aren't hacks, they're missing features we ought to support anyway. I strongly prefer implementing those over your proposed solution. It sounds to me like a lot of people using optional protocol requirements *want* the locality of control flow visible in the caller, for optimization or other purposes, and your proposed solution makes this incredibly obscure and magical. -Joe _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
