[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Requiring proactive overrides for default protocol implementations.

[Matthew Johnson]

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:20 PM, Erica Sadun <erica at ericasadun.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> On Friday, 29 April 2016, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>> Does that mean the conformance declaration will be accepted by the compiler under your proposal?  I would really like to see this called out explicitly in the proposal.
> 
> I'm making live updates at the gist in response to on-list discussions:
> 
> https://gist.github.com/erica/fc66e6f6335750d737e5512797e8284a
> 
> If you have specific suggestions for modifications, I'll be happy to evaluate for incorporation.

Unfortunately I don't have specific suggestions as there are flaws with all of the approaches I can think of.  However, I do think *something* needs to be specified regarding behavior when retroactively conforming a type from a different module which doesn't know anything about the protocol but does implement the requirements (as normal methods).  I can't determine how I feel about this proposal without seeing it clearly specified.



> 
> -- E
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160428/e988c578/attachment.html>