> Am 01.05.2016 um 03:03 schrieb Erica Sadun <[email protected]>: > > >> On Apr 29, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Thorsten Seitz <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >>> Am 29.04.2016 um 19:51 schrieb Xiaodi Wu <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>> >>> Yes, certainly this works today. The motivation for Erica's question is >>> that this would not work without modifying the third-party code if keywords >>> were required to indicate implementation of protocol requirements. >> >> If I understood the motivation correctly, the requirements should protect >> against typos where I planned to *replace* a method but due to a typo >> instead created a new method and inherited the default (or superclass) >> implementation. > > extension A where !x:B { > .... > } > > > then conforming a type to A and B would exclude the type from inheriting the > extension.
I still don’t see the need for that. As my code example demonstrated an extension will not override an existing method in a conforming type and my other mail demonstrated that it is not necessary to have „required“ keywords in existing code which is extended. Maybe I still haven’t understood the use case you are trying to solve. In that case I’d appreciate if you would give a complete example that shows what should happen why. -Thorsten
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
