Yes, thanks! Here’s the full proposal for those interested: https://github.com/erica/swift-evolution/blob/c541f517dacc2030c987b6d60ad3d26d8ec5fa3a/proposals/XXXX-role-keywords.md
I think that if we want to deal with the issue of some mistake arising from conforming to Equatable and/or Hashable, it should be through that proposal, not something specific to Equatable and Hashable. This sort of issue should not count against this Equatable/Hashable proposal. > On Aug 10, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Chris Lattner <clatt...@nondot.org> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 10, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Robert Bennett via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> I could have sworn that this sort of issue came up on this list earlier this >> year… Someone proposed a mechanism encompassing all protocols, not just >> Equatable and Hashable, to handle the issue of mistakenly believing you’re >> overriding a default implementation. Having trouble finding it at the moment. > > Is this what you’re thinking of? > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/724 > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/724> > > -Chris > > > >> . >> >>> On Aug 10, 2017, at 3:09 PM, David Ungar via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>> 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 inside: >>> >>> 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 >>> explicit. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> swift-evolution@swift.org >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
