<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br>On Apr 28, 2016, at 5:49 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=us-ascii"><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 28, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Matthew Johnson <<a href="mailto:matthew@anandabits.com" class="">matthew@anandabits.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div style="font-family: Palatino-Roman; font-size: 14px; 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;" class="">We can't add the keywords if the structs are defined in a module we import but don't own. We are only declaring the conformance retroactively. The ability to do this is a crucial aspect of generic programming. It isn't yet clear how your proposal handles retroactive modeling.</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">These are compile-time checks and should not affect compiled code.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>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.<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-- E</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div></body></html>