[swift-evolution] Default implementation of protocols

Jonathan Hull jhull at gbis.com
Mon Jan 23 18:13:57 CST 2017

Have we considered allowing a struct/class/enum to have the same name as a protocol as long as it conforms to the protocol?  Type declarations would have to always mean the protocol (which includes the concrete type as well).  Static functions would always apply to the concrete type.

Seems like a good way to support having a default implementation of a protocol.  I am always running into the awkward naming issues around this...

	protocol X {
		//yada yada

	struct X { //Implicitly adheres to protocol X (because it must)

	let myVar:X //This refers to the protocol
	let otherVar = X() //This makes the struct

If we do need to be able to spell the concrete type for other uses, we could probably do something like: ‘concrete(X)’ which isn’t pretty, but is there for the rare times it is needed for utility.  I can’t think of any reason except making an array of the concrete type.

I am guessing there is a subtle technical reason this won’t work, but I wanted to mention it now just in case it is possible.  Seems like it could have a large (simplifying) effect on the namespace of the standard library.


More information about the swift-evolution mailing list