<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class="">
<div class=""><br class=""></div>
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Le 3 mars 2016 à 22:23, Alsey Miller via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">My thoughts exactly! I don’t not understand the following statement:<div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""><div class="">Yes, a protocol will force you to provide an implementation. However, a protocol *by itself* cannot force the implementor of a class to provide an implementation unless that class declares itself in conformance with that protocol.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>My argument is that declaring to be the subclass of an abstract class, or declaring to be in conformance with a protocol would have the same effect. Even the syntax would be the same, e.g. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">class ConcreteClass: AbstractSuperclass { … }</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">or </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">class ConcreteClass: ProtocolWithoutExtensions { … }</div></div><div class="">
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </span>Coleman,</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote>Not really the same : The abstract class support encapsulation : In the abstract class, you can have private attributes and privates methods that encapsulate some kind of behavior and only some methods will be made abstract.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Encapsulation cannot be supported by protocols and if you want to add a full encapsulation in protocol, it will result of a kind of class in protocol syntax….</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br class=""></div><div>David</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>