> On Dec 10, 2017, at 6:00 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution 
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution 
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto: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.

Hi Brent,

This approach definitely could work.  I added it to the alternatives section 
with a breakdown of why I don’t think it’s the right direction:


swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to