> On Apr 29, 2016, at 8:38 AM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd be keenly interested in something that would improve the experience of > conforming a type to a protocol. I think others would as well. A sufficiently > sophisticated solution would: > > * catch unintentional typos that cause required functions to be incorrectly > named > * show, ideally prospectively, which required functions have default > implementations > * clarify (and this is obviously a cherry-on-top scenario) what protocol > requirements any particular function helps to satisfy as well as which > combination of implementations is used to synthesize a default implementation > of another function (e.g. <= synthesized from < and ==; this would help to > determine whether it might be more efficient to roll your own override) > * support all retroactive modeling scenarios currently supported > > I tried to propose a keyword-based solution (less sophisticated than yours) a > while back, and I've been convinced that the drawbacks in terms of decreased > expressiveness in retroactive modeling might be insurmountable. Perhaps it > would be worthwhile exploring improvements in tooling and documentation > (including annotation of the code itself) in order to address some of these > areas?
Hop over to the protocol non-conformance clause thread for a moment, if you could. -- E _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
