> On Apr 25, 2016, at 13:13, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> * I believe "near miss" is less important than "intentional override",
> requiring a signature of intent as in inheritance.
This is a bit of a tangent, but as far as I know no one has objected to this.
It's just that no one has written up a proposal that includes retroactive
modeling.
Having an "intentionally implements a protocol" keyword is good, but doesn't
obviate the use for near-miss checking, particularly in migration from Swift
2.2.
Jordan
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
