> On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:10 AM, Adrian Zubarev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It’s probably the influence from iOS development where I have delegate
> protocols like this one:
>
> @objc public protocol _ContainerViewControllerDelegate: class {
>
> @objc optional func containerViewController(_ containerViewController:
> ContainerViewController,
> willPerform operation:
> ContainerViewController.Operation,
> from oldViewController:
> UIViewController,
> to newViewController:
> UIViewController,
> animated: Bool)
>
> @objc optional func containerViewController(_ containerViewController:
> ContainerViewController,
> didPerform operation:
> ContainerViewController.Operation,
> from oldViewController:
> UIViewController,
> to newViewController:
> UIViewController,
> animated: Bool)
>
> @objc optional func containerViewController(_ containerViewController:
> ContainerViewController,
> willSet oldViewControllers:
> [UIViewController],
> to newViewControllers:
> [UIViewController],
> animated: Bool)
>
> @objc optional func containerViewController(_ containerViewController:
> ContainerViewController,
> didSet newViewControllers:
> [UIViewController],
> from oldViewControllers:
> [UIViewController],
> animated: Bool)
> }
This looks like a bad API to begin with. If I was designing something like this
I would instead have a single containerViewController() method or something
that takes a value which encodes the various states.
You could have something like this:
enum ViewControllerState {
case willPerform(…)
case didPerform(…)
case willSet(…)
case didSet(…)
}
Slava
> Implementing noops for each function in an extension seems kind of a wrong
> decision for a few reasons:
>
> They don’t make sense, because either the receiver implements a function or
> not. So optional functions provide a more natural solution to that problem.
>
> We don’t have to pass unnecessarily any arguments to the top functions.
>
> (Personal preference) I tend to avoid @objc in general.
>
> I think there was some technical reason why we don’t have optional functions
> in pure Swift yet, something that also affects dynamic if I’m not mistaken.
>
> Think of the protocol from above as of an existential of a set of functions.
> The problem is that, I don’t want to introduce a standalone protocol for
> every function, so the client can decide which protocol it will conform to to
> avoid these noops. Furthermore, it’s way easier to check for an optional
> function in your control flow instead of dealing with default values delegate
> functions with a more complex return type might have.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 28. März 2017 um 07:31:50, Slava Pestov ([email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>) schrieb:
>
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2017, at 1:48 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Assuming we’ll get that functionality, both var and let should satisfy the
>>> protocol requirements right?
>>>
>> In theory, there’s no reason not to allow that.
>>
>>> If it is valid, could we potentially get optional functions in pure Swift
>>> as well?
>>>
>>>
>> I mean, you can already do this:
>>
>> protocol P {
>> var optionalRequirement: ((Int) -> ())? { get }
>> }
>>
>> extension P {
>> // “default implementation"
>> var optionalRequirement: ((Int) -> ())? { return nil }
>> }
>>
>> struct A : P {}
>>
>> struct B : P {
>> let optionalRequirement: ((Int) -> ())? = { (x: Int) in print(x) }
>> }
>>
>> But it’s kind of tacky.
>>
>> If you think about it, “optional requirement” is an oxymoron. What’s your
>> use-case?
>>
>> Slava
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
