[swift-evolution] [swift-dev] RFC: "Near-miss" checking for defaulted protocol requirements

[Jordan Rose]

> On Apr 25, 2016, at 13:13, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> * I believe "near miss" is less important than "intentional override", requiring a signature of intent as in inheritance. 

This is a bit of a tangent, but as far as I know no one has objected to this. It's just that no one has written up a proposal that includes retroactive modeling.

Having an "intentionally implements a protocol" keyword is good, but doesn't obviate the use for near-miss checking, particularly in migration from Swift 2.2.

Jordan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160425/7de3972d/attachment.html>