Sent from my iPad
> On May 29, 2016, at 12:28 AM, Patrick Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah I don’t see a problem. It’s the same way that protocol extensions just > work. Think of this automatic synthesis as a really flexible protocol > extension: > > extension Hashable where Members : Hashable { > var hashValue : Int { > return self.allMembers.reduce(^) // Or whatever combiner is best > } > } Protocol extensions require you to declare conformance before your type receives their implementation and it must be identical for all do conforming types. You should have to declare conformance to receive Equatable conformance and synthesis. IMO it makes sense to do that with 'deriving' which makes it clear that you are requesting synthesized rather than manual conformance. > > >>> On 29 May 2016, at 1:19 PM, Jon Shier via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The problem with this is that it doesn’t differentiate between synthesized >>> and manual conformance. You won’t get error messages you otherwise would >>> when you intend to supply manual conformance. It is also less clear to a >>> reader of the code that the default, compiler synthesized implementation is >>> being generated. >> >> I don’t think it’s reasonable to force the language down the path where >> developers don’t have to be familiar with its features in order to use them >> correctly. If types in Swift were to automatically gain Equatable and >> Hashable conformances whenever they were used by something that required >> them, that would be a core language feature, like type inference, that even >> junior developers in the language would need to know. Yet few (though not >> none) would insist that all types be manually declared, despite otherwise >> not knowing when our type inference goes wrong. It’s just a basic feature of >> the language that anyone using the language should know about, otherwise it >> can bite them in the ass when weird compiler errors start popping up. >> Frankly, IMO, this is an obvious case of 80/20 optimization. In the >> vast majority of cases where my types are trivially equatable, I should just >> be able to declare them as such and gain the compiler-synthesized ==. In the >> cases where that’s not possible, the compiler can emit an error. And in the >> cases where I want a custom == implementation I can provide it. Requiring a >> new keyword and not making this feature as simple as possible because the >> rare developer with a custom type who doesn’t want the synthesized == they >> just said they did by declaring Equatable conformance is an unnecessary >> defaulting to the rare case. >> >> >> >> >> Jon Shier >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
