On 22.09.2016 7:46, Russ Bishop via swift-evolution wrote:


On Sep 20, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:


on Tue Sep 20 2016, Karl <razielim-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

I think the best way is to prefix the member name with the protocol,
e.g:

protocol MyProto { var aVariable : Int func aFunction() } class
MyClass : MyProto { var MyProto.aVariable : Int func
MyProto.aFunction() { … } }
...
CC-ing Dave A, to understand better if this fits with the vision of
protocols

I generally agree with Doug.  The canonical way to indicate “this
method/property/type implements a requirement of protocol P” should
be to define the entity in an extension that also adds conformance to
P. If that's inadequate indication in some way we should find a way
to enhance it.  I wouldn't mind the notation above, but only as a
fallback, not a reuquirement.

-- -Dave _______________________________________________

Indeed this is exactly how C# handles Interfaces (protocols). The


Can C#'s interface(protocol) have default implementations for its requirements like in Swift?


default is the exact same way Swift works - by matching names. If there
is a collision you specify Protocol.memberName. Its simple and in the
years I was writing C# code it was flexible enough to cover most
reasonable scenarios, without adding a bunch of boilerplate.

Russ

_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing
list swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to