on Tue Sep 27 2016, Thorsten Seitz <tseitz42-AT-icloud.com> wrote:
> While this solves the problem of overlapping names with different
> semantics, how would you express the case where the names actually
> have the same semantics, so that you only want to have one
> implementor?
>
> protocol A {
> func specficSemantics()
> func sameSemantics()
> }
>
> protocol B {
> func specficSemantics()
> func sameSemantics()
> }
>
> struct C : A, B {
> // these implementations have to be specific for A and B so Karl’s
> approach allows to differentiate them
> func A.specficSemantics() { … }
> func B.specficSemantics() { … }
>
> // this implementation should be shared by A and B because both share
> the same semantic here
> func sameSemantics() { … } // ??
>
> // would I have to write it like that (manual delegation to the shared
> implementation)?
> func sameSemantics() { … }
> func A.sameSemantics() { sameSemantics() }
> func B.sameSemantics() { sameSemantics() }
> }
>
> -Thorsten
The cases where you find these kinds of exact collisions are so rare (never in
my
career) that it's fine if some manual work is needed.
--
-Dave
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
