> On Mar 26, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>> On Mar 26, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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!
Want to try your hand at implementing them? ;-) Would be a good starter project for diving into Sema and SILGen. I can give pointers and guidance. Slava > >> >> Slava >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
