Have we considered allowing a struct/class/enum to have the same name as a
protocol as long as it conforms to the protocol? Type declarations would have
to always mean the protocol (which includes the concrete type as well). Static
functions would always apply to the concrete type.
Seems like a good way to support having a default implementation of a protocol.
I am always running into the awkward naming issues around this...
protocol X {
//yada yada
}
struct X { //Implicitly adheres to protocol X (because it must)
init(){…}
}
let myVar:X //This refers to the protocol
let otherVar = X() //This makes the struct
If we do need to be able to spell the concrete type for other uses, we could
probably do something like: ‘concrete(X)’ which isn’t pretty, but is there for
the rare times it is needed for utility. I can’t think of any reason except
making an array of the concrete type.
I am guessing there is a subtle technical reason this won’t work, but I wanted
to mention it now just in case it is possible. Seems like it could have a
large (simplifying) effect on the namespace of the standard library.
Thanks,
Jon
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
