Just want to add my voice to the chorus of “this has happened to me too.”
l8r Sean > On Aug 23, 2016, at 2:13 AM, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Aug 23, 2016, at 12:11 AM, Charlie Monroe <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I don't see it as sub-par in this example (this actually happened to me): >> >> @objc protocol Foo { >> optional func bar() >> } >> >> class FooImpl: Foo { >> func bar() { ... } >> } >> >> Now imagine that bar() gets renamed in the protocol to baz(). You get no >> warnings, nothing - since the bar() was optional (or can have default >> implementation as Chalers mentioned). FooImpl still conforms to Foo and >> bar() can live on there happily. > > Had that happen to me a bunch of times, especially when I realize that the > method needs to have one more argument and then forget to add it everywhere > (which is harder to use search-and-replace for, as well). > > Here’s another case where this can bite you: > > In file P.swift: > > protocol P { > func foo() > } > > extension P { > func foo() > } > > In another file, S.swift: > > struct S: P {} > > Imagine I rename foo in the protocol, but forget to rename it in the > extension. The method no longer has a default implementation, and we do > indeed get an error, but the error’s in S.swift, in the wrong place. S > complains that it doesn’t conform to the protocol. If there were a keyword on > foo() in the extension, the compiler warning would be right where the problem > is as soon as I renamed the method in the protocol, and it’d be a 2-second > fix. > > Charles > > _______________________________________________ > 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
