If I understand it, merely adding Equatable or Hashable will cause the compiler 
to synthesize requirements. This syntax opens up the possibility for errors:

struct Snort: Hashable {
  static var hashValu /* NOTE MISSPELLING */ : Int { return 666 }

In the above example, the programmer meant to implement hashValue but 
misspelled it.
With the proposal as-is, the error could be covered up.

I would prefer to see a different syntax than merely adding conformance to 
"HashValue", in order to distinguish the two cases: explicit supplying the 
requirement vs synthesis.

Also, what if we want to extend this idea to other protocols? Perhaps some sort 
of modifier on the protocol name would be more orthogonal:

struct Foo: Synth Hashable, Equatable 

Would say that Hashable requirements get synthesized but Equatable ones do not.

Alternatively, it might be clearer, though more verbose to move the signalling 

struct Snort: Hashable {
  synth hashValue

(I don't advocate this specific syntax, btw.) But it has the virtual of 
possibly making it clearer to read the code.

TL;DR: I favor the proposal but would prefer modification to make it more 
swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to