<div style="white-space:pre-wrap">Well it just doesn't help with collisions it helps with signature changes in a protocol going missed in conformers in a much more reliable way.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:11 AM Martin Waitz via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Am 2016-09-27 16:51, schrieb Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution:<br>
> The cases where you find these kinds of exact collisions are so rare<br>
> (never in my career) that it's fine if some manual work is needed.<br>
<br>
I agree that such accidental collisions are quite rare (especially with<br>
the Swift way of naming methods which makes it quite easy to describe<br>
the semantics of the function).<br>
<br>
However, I draw some other conclusion from it: I don't see why I should<br>
have to explicitly name the protocol in my methods. The method name is<br>
enough already to match it to the protocol.<br>
<br>
We shouldn't complicate our language just for obscure cases where<br>
protocols accidentally collide.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Martin<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
</blockquote></div>