> On Feb 28, 2017, at 2:28 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 28, 2017, at 4:14 PM, David Hart <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> On 28 Feb 2017, at 22:45, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> • What is your evaluation of the proposal? >>> +1, this is a fantastic proposal! I >>> >>> The proposal does not specifically call out whether a class may inherit >>> from a subclass of a superclass constraint when a typealias is used in the >>> inheritance list. I believe the following should be valid, but it would be >>> a good idea to make that explicit: >>> >>> class B {} >>> class D: B {} >>> protocol P {} >>> typealias BP = B & P >>> >>> class Foo: D, BP >> >> It’s true that the proposal is not very clear about that specific scenario, >> but I see it as valid. I touched about it in the “inheritance clauses and >> typealias” section but only mentioned inheritance from the class in the >> constraint. But rule 2 of the proposal kind of implies it: the first element >> in the protocol composition syntax can be a class type to enforce the >> existential to be a subtype of the class. >> >> It would be worth being more precise about it, but not sure how a proposal >> can be *fixed* during review. > > I think proposals have occasionally seen this kind of clarification during > review. In any case, thanks for confirming your intent. I just wanted to > make sure this is what you expected also.
Yeah, I don't see any problem clarifying intent and making minor revisions to the proposal in response to review feedback. -Joe _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
