> On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:01 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Feb 2017, at 22:54, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2017, at 8:44 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a nice generalization of the existing protocol composition syntax.
>>> Implementation might get a little tricky — this touches a lot of things,
>>> such as inheritance clauses, constraints in generic signatures, and casts.
>>> It would require thorough testing.
>>>
>>> There are also a few odd corner cases to sort out:
>>>
>>> typealias T = SomeClass & SomeProtocol
>>>
>>> class C : T { // should we allow this? probably yes
>>> }
>>>
>>> protocol P : T { // should we allow this? probably no
>>> }
>>
>> IIRC, we already allow the latter where T is a typealias for SomeProtocol1 &
>> SomeProtocol2. Why not allow it generally?
>
> Well what would it mean? A protocol can't inherit or conform to a class.
That anything which conforms to that protocol must subclass SomeClass?
- Dave Sweeris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
