Is that assumption correct?
// Module A
public protocol SQLiteValue {
init(statement: SQLiteStatement, columnAt index: Int) throws
func bind(to statement: SQLiteStatement, at index: Int) throws
}
// Module B
protocol SQLiteLoggable : SQLiteValue {
var logDescription: String { get }
}
I could not follow your example there. If SQLiteLoggable is from module B than
this should be an error in my opinion. Otherwise open would have less meaning
on protocols, because you always could create an empty protocol that has a
super public protocol which you’re not allowed to conform to in module B. This
would be a silly workaround to being able to conform to it SQLiteValue
indirectly without any further requirement like in SQLiteValueConvertible.
That said, it makes no sense to me to allow that, because it’s simply a
workaround to conform to a protocol which public-but-not-open tries to prevent.
// Module X
public protocol A {}
open protocol AA : A { func foo() } // Fine
// Module Y
struct B : A {} // Error
struct B : AA { func foo() { .. } } // Okay
protocol C : A {} // Error because `struct B : C` would equal `struct B : A`
protocol CC : AA {} // Should work even empty, because we have more requirement
from `AA`
public should have a consistent meaning across all types from module A in
module B, which is ‘not allowed to sub-type from’ and in case of protocols
additionally ‘not allowed to conform to’._______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
