> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Andrew Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hey, what annotations would I have in this case:
>
> Module 1:
> Type AType { func foo() { ... } }
> Module 2:
> import Module1
> protocol A { func foo() {...default...} }
> extension AType: A {}
>
No annotations. AType's implementation of foo is unrelated to its conformance,
which is satisfied by its existing foo method.
> Also, for your alternatives section:
>
> protocol A { func foo() {...default...} }
> Type AType: A {
> func A.foo() {...replacement...}
> }
>
> I actually prefer this alternative, I think it fixes many issues.
Protocol default implementations do not yet exist.
In this second, you're suggesting instead of doing "override required", you use
a naming approach that ties the implementation the specific protocol. I'm not
really won over by this approach:
* It does clarify why the method is included
* It does not clarify that the method overrides an existing implementation.
* It could be more easily confused when members are required by multiple
protocols.
-- E
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
