> On Apr 28, 2016, at 20:51, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
How does this match the first line in your "Handling Changes" table?
(from your table, for reference)
Original: Some member implemented in type
Change: Protocol adds that member
Outcome: Must add 'required' to type implementation or rename member to avoid
conflict
>> 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
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
