Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Mar 26, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I’d like to pitch the following two language changes. Both of them are >> technically possible today if you manually write thunks for the relevant >> protocol requirements, but it would be nice if we allowed them to be written >> directly: >> >> 1) Allow closures to satisfy function requirements in protocols > > I have mixed feelings about this one because of the argument labels issue. > > >> >> 2) Allow functions with default parameters to satisfy function requirements >> in protocols >> > > This would be an excellent improvement. I don’t think it needs an SE > proposal, it is “obvious” how it would work. > > I would also add the following for full generality: > > 3) Allow enum cases without payloads to satisfy static read-only property > requirements > 4) Allow enum cases with payloads to satisfy static method requirements I was just thinking about these the other day. Good to know you're already thinking about them! > > Slava > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
