If I got the idea right, you would need to implement yourself the protocol methods to answer for both init(rawValue: Int) and init(rawValue: String) - which is how you have to do today only with the string part - while my proposed approach you'd have to implement nothing yourself.
L > On 31 May 2016, at 7:19 pm, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > If we had generic protocols, you could implement RawRepresentable twice, once > using Ints and one using Strings. But that's probably never going to happen. > > /digression > > Austin > >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On May 31, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> • also wants OptionSetType-like behavior (and thus an Int raw type). >> > >> > Then it's not an `enum`, it's a `struct`. >> >> You can get it for free as an array of enums and test with contains vs member >> >> -- E, who has probably digressed more than she really should >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
