<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Dec 10, 2017, at 8:00 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon 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=""><div class="" style="font-family: SourceCodePro-Regular; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">None of which are true of ordinary protocols. Since then, we have added:</div><div class="" style="font-family: SourceCodePro-Regular; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br class=""></div><div class="" style="font-family: SourceCodePro-Regular; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">5. Can only be conformed to in the main declaration.</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">This is the main thing that made me think Letanyan's suggestion of an attribute might make more sense for this than just a normal protocol. I'm not really a fan of bifurcating the semantics with an attribute denoting "safe"/"unsafe" versions of the protocol. But if this restriction is accepted (which I think it must be in order to avoid some legitimate concerns), this is something that would be unique to this protocol that no other protocol has had to adhere to. If this type of requirement isn't made available more generally to protocols, then this would be a very special case that complicates the definition of what a protocol is. I'm curious to hear Chris's thoughts on Paul's feedback.</div></body></html>