<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body dir="auto">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"></span></font></blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Sorry, I understand and appreciate your pragmatism. Right now it feels<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">very much like a fight to the ideological death between POP and OOP<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">and it may get really bad results this way.</span></font></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>
Being in the run-up to WWDC, I don't really have the time to participate<br>
in this discussion right now, although I think it is important and<br>
interesting. However, this last sentence caught my eye and I thought I<br>
should clarify something: protocols unify static and dynamic dispatch,<br>
and one is not inherently better than the other. They have different<br>
strengths. Protocol-oriented programming is about leveraging those<br>
strengths appropriately, not about a mandate to choose one or the other<br>
form of dispatch.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>Well said.</div>
<div>Maybe the issue is not about being unclear at the point of definition in the extension, but at the call site - similar to value vs. reference semantics.</div>
<div>Just as a thought experiment, putting aside that it would be ugly, would having a different syntax for invoking methods with static and dynamic dispatch help to understand the working of the code better?</div>
</body>
</html>