On 22.09.2016 11:10, Jean-Denis Muys via swift-evolution wrote:
I watched this thread with a lot of attention, starting neutral. You
must say that Karl won me over. His proposal would make Swift more
expressive, and less error prone in cases of protocol conformance with
name collisions. I am at this point +1

Actually I also support Karl's suggestion in general. It is trying to solve IMO important problems and make Swift's protocol programming safer and less fragile. Also it adds new interested features for working with protocols.

But in reality, I don't feel like his suggestion could be accepted by core team and community and even if it could be supported, it seems for me that *implementation* of his proposal requires a huge amount of time and big changes in how Swift is working currently. (Probably some one who knows Swift internals could comment regarding this) So, theoretically we'd have these improvements not in near future and I think the problem discussed is very important to be addressed in Swift as soon as possible.
I base my opinion also on previous discussions regarding similar subjects.

My suggestion regarding a marker for protocol implementation method/prop in type - solves most of the addressed problems with protocol conformance and with fragile of such conformance, and adds one new keyword (or even zero - right now I think the `override` is better choice for such "marker"). I believe this proposal could be implemented with much less amount of work and with less changes to current internals of Swift and to current code base, and so we can have such a big improvement in Swift soon. So my intention was to suggest solution that can dramatically improve Swift's protocol programming with "small" amount of changes for compiler(internals) and for existed sources.

But it seems like the direction chosen by the core team and supported by many in community - is just a warning if extension conforming type to protocol contains unrelated to that protocol methods/props. I see that this solution can improve protocol programming in some areas, but does not address some IMO important issues we discussed in the thread :

* Currently extension can not have stored properties. So, if we want to implement protocol's props as stored properties - we can't move them to extension. So to implement this soulution - we need stored properties in extensions. It is not clear if and when they are expected.

* This solution will not require the safety(regarding protocol conformance) from a developer, it will only inform and only if protocol conformance defined in extension. So, when you use 3rd party source code - your project will not be protected for the discussed problems.

* To write safe code I can't group methods/props as I want, I have to declare a number of extensions per-protocol (in case my type conforms to a number of protocols)

* This solution does not solve problem of near-miss signature of method definition in protocol extension like here:
protocol A { func foo() }
protocol B : A {}
extension A { func foo() }
extension B { func voo() } // typo. how to "mark" this should be impl?
"my" suggestion:
extension A { override func foo() }
extension B { override func foo() }

* Not clear how to write safe code with that approach if we implement protocol requirement in derived class, but conformance was declared in base (but not implemented) :
protocol P { func foo() }
extension P { func foo() }
class A : P {}
class B { func foo() } // we can't move this to extension, B already conforms to P , and in opposite to "my" `override` requirement for implementation, if `A` will add its own foo() implementation - we'll have to change B's definition(need to add `override` for B.foo )
"my" suggestion:
class B { override func foo() }



Jean-Denis

Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Sep 2016, at 07:15, Karl via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

I would like to make it a requirement if not inside a protocol
extension which declares a conformance, and actually build the
protocol name in to the member in an ABI-breaking way. We could make
it additive by generating forwarding thunks from the old symbols to
the new ones, but it would be better if we could just solve the
overlapping-members problem before then.

That would mean you never get collisions between protocol members.
There’s loads of amazing stuff we can do with that ability, and ways
we can extend it to reduce a lot of boilerplate that occurs when you
want to have multiple representations of the same data (String is just
an example).

I don’t really care about the syntax we need to make it liveable. We
could automatically insert the protocol names for unambiguous members
at call-site, or something else.

This thread was originally about making the *syntax* a requirement; I
agree with that, and I would actually take it one (or several) steps
further, solving other problems along the way.

On 22 Sep 2016, at 06:46, Russ Bishop <xen...@gmail.com> 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
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

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

Reply via email to