Tino, In what way is this “hiding” protocol conformance? In the examples, MyClass is declaring conformance to A and B via the Useful protocol composition. Perhaps I should have made it clearer which bits are new/proposed: Only the implements word is new here, the protocol composition syntax (A & B) already exists.
You’re probably right that this is an additive (4.1) thing. But personally I see no harm in building up a backlog of useful proposals to be reviewed next year. The knowledge of what’s to come may also help influence thinking on what’s to come next. Should such discussions be flagged as additive in the subject somehow? I think I asked this before but forgot or missed if there was a response. On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 at 16:21 Tino Heth <[email protected]> wrote: Kotlin has a imho really nice solution for this: Because constructor parameters appear right after the class declaration, you can refer to them in the inheritance-clause. Protocol conformance is a quite important aspect of a type, so I'm not sure if it wise to allow "hiding" it — and I hope the promised macro-system will allow forwarding, so that there is no special syntax needed. Bottom line: Imho it's not the right time for serious discussion (serious means: with the goal of a accepted proposal ;-)
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
