<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 25, 2016, at 13:13, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">* I believe "near miss" is less important than "intentional override", requiring a signature of intent as in inheritance. </div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>This is a bit of a tangent, but as far as I know <i class="">no one has objected to this</i>. It's just that no one has written up a proposal that includes retroactive modeling.</div><br class=""><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Jordan</div></body></html>