> On May 20, 2016, at 12:35 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On May 20, 2016, at 9:17 AM, Austin Zheng <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I almost want to propose forbidding methods in protocol extensions unless >> they're also a requirement in the protocol itself, but I don't think that >> would fly. > > I don’t think that would fly :-). That said, has anyone considered requiring > a keyword on the method in the protocol extension that makes it explicit that > the dispatch is non-dynamic?
I believe `final` has been discussed previously for this purpose. IIRC the intent was to *disallow* the type to have its own method with the same signature. However, that interacts poorly with retroactive conformance which means `final` is probably not best choice. Before we introduce a keyword I think we should be sure the current semantics are what we plan to stick with. I haven’t seen any good alternatives proposed, but people do keep bringing up this topic. The desire is usually to change the semantics, not just clarify the existing semantics. > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > 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
