Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:20 PM, Erica Sadun <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> On Friday, 29 April 2016, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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. > > I'm making live updates at the gist in response to on-list discussions: > > https://gist.github.com/erica/fc66e6f6335750d737e5512797e8284a > > If you have specific suggestions for modifications, I'll be happy to evaluate > for incorporation. Unfortunately I don't have specific suggestions as there are flaws with all of the approaches I can think of. However, I do think *something* needs to be specified regarding behavior when retroactively conforming a type from a different module which doesn't know anything about the protocol but does implement the requirements (as normal methods). I can't determine how I feel about this proposal without seeing it clearly specified. > > -- E >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
