> On Dec 9, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:20 Steven Brunwasser <sbrunwas...@gmail.com > <mailto:sbrunwas...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Just wanted to give my 2¢ > > ¢ > I don’t like empty protocols—they feel like an abuse of the feature. > > As has been discussed here before, protocols aren’t about bags of syntax but > rather about semantics. Empty protocols are explicitly a demonstration of > this settled principle and are very much consistent with the direction of > Swift.
I also think it should be an attribute. The last time I said this, I pointed out that this was a protocol which: 1. Has no formal members, 2. But imposes informal requirements enforced by the compiler, 3. Permits and uses arbitrary overloads, and 4. Cannot be usefully used in a generic context or as a type constraint, None of which are true of ordinary protocols. Since then, we have added: 5. Can only be conformed to in the main declaration. This is looking less like a protocol by the day. The square-peg grooves in the round hole are getting deeper and more splintery with every revision. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
