Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 11, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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. Do you have the same thought for optional closure properties? If so and heightForRow was an optional closure property it would satisfy all use cases elegantly. It could have a default implementation that returns nil. When non-uniform heights are required a normal method implementation can be provided. Delegates that have uniform row heights some of the time, but not all of the time, would also be supported by implementing the property. If we decide to favor this approach it would be really nice to be able to import Cocoa delegate protocols this way. Is that something that might be feasible? > > -Joe > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
