> On Apr 10, 2017, at 10:26 AM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> I’m not sure that this solves anything meaningful (whether in relation to >> SE-0169 or more generally), does it? What advantage does this provide over >> just declaring the protocol conformance and those methods as a direct part >> of the parent type? This seems like it would just introduce more >> indentation, and more lines of code, for zero benefit. > Well, I'm not overwhelmingly convinced of this whole "we put same-module > stuff into extensions" anyways, so it's debatable wether proposals like > SE-0169 have any meaningful effects at all… do you think that conformances in > same-file extensions have a real benefit?
I think the primary benefit is organizational. People like having the members that implement a conformance grouped together with the conformance declaration. > > If nothing else, nested extensions could save those who actually don't care > much about such issues from another breaking change in Swift — and imho it > adds consistency: > We can nest types, so why can't we nest extensions? > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
