I’m actually not sure what the next step is. What is the official way to submit the proposal for the Swift team to consider?
> > Le 18 avr. 2016 à 12:01, Yogev Sitton<[email protected]>a écrit : > > > > I’m referring you to Ross O’Brien’s post: > > As of Swift 2.2, if a variable has a closure type of e.g. () ->Shape, a > > closure of type () ->Circle would be considered a match. If a class > > implements 'func make() ->Shape', a subclass implementing 'func make() > > ->Circle' has to override. However, if a protocol requires a 'func make() > > ->Shape', a type implementing 'func make() ->Circle' isn't considered to be > > conforming. That does seem strange. > > > > Protocols behaves differently than closures and classes and I think they > > should behave the same. > All right, I get it. > > Shape, as a return type, is "trampoline" data that wraps any Shape value, > when Circle is just a Circle. That's why the two functions () ->Shape? and () > ->Circle? don't match today. > > But maybe they will eventually, thanks to your request! > > Gwendal > > > > _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
