<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br></div><div><br>On Apr 27, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Erica Sadun <<a href="mailto:erica@ericasadun.com">erica@ericasadun.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 27, 2016, at 1:45 PM, L. Mihalkovic <<a href="mailto:laurent.mihalkovic@gmail.com" class="">laurent.mihalkovic@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="">Inline<br class=""><br class=""><div class="">Regards</div>(From<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "> mobile)</span></div><div class=""><br class="">On Apr 27, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class="">On Apr 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Douglas Gregor <<a href="mailto:dgregor@apple.com" class="">dgregor@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><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="">On Apr 27, 20</div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>* If the latter, “override” is probably the wrong keyword because it’s not overriding anything in the common case of implementing a non-defaulted requirement.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>It would be pointless if it’s just satisfying a requirement. That’s why introduced both keywords into the discussion. (And because I’m still being influenced by the “near miss” conversation.)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">One could always argue that should protocol definitions ever be allowed to contain default implementations ala-java default methods, the distinction between former and latter would go away, and it would be happy anticipation to have mandated *override* all along in all cases, ensuring that future default methods would not accidentally take precedence of current code or wind up being treated differently than other overrides.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I would expect default implementations in protocol definitions to act exactly like protocol definitions in extensions from the Type point of view.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>From the protocol point of view, I would introduce the same override behavior to signal affirmative intent.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class=""></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><br><div>... so *override* seems like the right keyword choice for today, that would be future proof in case default methods ever make it in protocols (which might be a cheap partial answer to the 'what about mixins' question)</div></body></html>