on Tue Sep 27 2016, Martin Waitz <tali-AT-admingilde.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Am 2016-09-27 16:51, schrieb Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution: >> 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. > > I agree that such accidental collisions are quite rare (especially > with the Swift way of naming methods which makes it quite easy to > describe the semantics of the function). > > However, I draw some other conclusion from it: I don't see why I > should have to explicitly name the protocol in my methods. The method > name is enough already to match it to the protocol.
I draw the same conclusion. It should maybe be available as a backdoor mechanism for handling those rare cases, but not a requirement. > We shouldn't complicate our language just for obscure cases where > protocols accidentally collide. -- -Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
