<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></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 Jun 14, 2017, at 10:11 AM, 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=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Some pals and I have been kicking an idea around about introducing better ways to support the compiler in protocol extensions. We want to eliminate some hard-to-detect bugs. We've been brainstorming on how to do this without affecting backward compatibility and introducing a minimal impact on keywords. <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We'd love to know what you think of our idea, which is to introduce "role" keywords. Roles allow the compiler to automatically check the intended use of a extension member definition against its protocol declarations, and emit errors, warnings, and fixits as needed. We think it's a pretty straightforward approach that, if adopted, eliminates an entire category of bugs.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The draft proposal is here: <a href="https://gist.github.com/erica/14283fe18254489c1498a7069b7760c4" class="">https://gist.github.com/erica/14283fe18254489c1498a7069b7760c4</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks in advance for your thoughtful feedback,</div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>+1 on the idea of this. The same sort of thing is extremely valuable classes that are trying to implement "optional requirements” in @objc protocols.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>