It is a good idea to explicitly document the behaviour that this requirement for override is a compile time check only and does not mean that already compiled code has to be recompiled to allow a protocol to be retroactively fitted to an already compiled type.
On Friday, 29 April 2016, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 28, 2016, at 5:49 PM, Erica Sadun <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > > On Apr 28, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > We can't add the keywords if the structs are defined in a module we import > but don't own. We are only declaring the conformance retroactively. The > ability to do this is a crucial aspect of generic programming. It isn't > yet clear how your proposal handles retroactive modeling. > > > These are compile-time checks and should not affect compiled code. > > > Does that mean the conformance declaration will be accepted by the > compiler under your proposal? I would really like to see this called out > explicitly in the proposal. > > > -- E > > -- -- Howard.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
