Yes, this could be a solution, but what about just one protocol conformance?
class Child: SomeProtocol
class Child: BaseClass
IMO we still need to separate the definition
.. or
class Child: &SomeProtocol
but I don't believe such could be accepted/allowed.
And, after all, this still changes the syntaxt, so we need to decide if
this change should be done in Swift 3.0, or after, or never..
On 22.07.2016 16:41, Ian Partridge wrote:
Now that SE-0095 is accepted, I think it would be a good idea to use
the infix & operator for specifying protocol conformance as well.
1. class inheritance :
class Child: BaseClass
2. class conformance :
class Child: SomeProtocol1 & SomeProtocol2
3. class inheritance + conformance :
class Child: BaseClass, SomeProtocol1 & SomeProtocol2
4. protocol conformance for structs:
struct Struct: SomeProtocol1 & SomeProtocol2
5. protocol inheritance:
protocol Child: BaseProtocol1 & BaseProtocol2
Thanks,
Ian
On 22 July 2016 at 14:14, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution
<[email protected]> wrote:
I remember that this was discussed, but can't find any decision regarding
this.. So, as a last chance, don't we want in Swift 3.0, as big source
breaking change, separate class inheritance and protocol conformance in
syntax?
Sorry if there was a decision about this suggestions. Please let know in
this case.
I.e. when I see the following I can't understand if the class inherits from
base class and conforms to protocols or just conforms to two protocols:
class MyClass : First, Second, Third {
}
We don't have a rule to name protocols with 'Protocol'/other suffix/prefix,
or classes with 'T'/'C' prefix or something like this, so I believe to
improve the clarity of code we should separate in syntax inheritance and
conformance.
As I understand we should discuss changes in these areas:
1. class inheritance :
class Child: BaseClass
2. class conformance :
class Child: SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
3. class inheritance + conformance :
class Child: BaseClass, SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
4. protocol conformance for structs:
struct Struct: SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
5. protocol inheritance:
protocol Child: BaseProtocol1, BaseProtocol2
My suggestions:
I) separate inheritance with double colon :
1. class inheritance :
class Child:: BaseClass
2. class conformance :
class Child: SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
3. class inheritance + conformance :
class Child:: BaseClass : SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
4. protocol conformance for structs:
struct Struct: SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
5. protocol inheritance:
protocol Child:: BaseProtocol1, BaseProtocol2
II) in class definition use parenthesis to separate inheritance and
conformance :
1. class inheritance :
class Child: BaseClass
2. class conformance :
class Child: (SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2)
3. class inheritance + conformance :
class Child: BaseClass (SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2)
4. protocol conformance for structs:
struct Struct: SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
or
struct Struct: (SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2)
should be discussed
5. protocol inheritance:
protocol Child: BaseProtocol1, BaseProtocol2
III) special word like 'conforms'
1. class inheritance :
class Child: BaseClass
2. class conformance :
class Child: conforms SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
or
class Child conforms SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
3. class inheritance + conformance :
class Child: BaseClass conforms SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
4. protocol conformance for structs:
struct Struct: conforms SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
or
struct Struct conforms SomeProtocol1, SomeProtocol2
5. protocol inheritance:
protocol Child: BaseProtocol1, BaseProtocol2
Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
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
