+1 for the fix. Solid and straightforward.
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Rod Brown via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> There has been a lot of discussion around this design decision.
> Personally, I’m with you: this should be allowed. Protocol extensions
> should be
There has been a lot of discussion around this design decision. Personally, I’m
with you: this should be allowed. Protocol extensions should be defaults,
nothing more.
The rationale mentioned in Swift Evolution for discouraging this behaviour
tends to be that if you conform to the protocol,
I have a change ready and can turn it into a PR. Jordan mentioned in the
bug that this would require a SE proposal, but looking at this as a bug in
the current implementation rather than a change in the language makes
sense. It certainly is trivial enough, and doesn't change any semantics, so
I'll
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:23 AM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> I think the fact that the type checker permits ‘final’ to appear inside
> protocol extensions is an oversight and this probably does not even warrant a
> proposal. I
I think the fact that the type checker permits ‘final’ to appear inside
protocol extensions is an oversight and this probably does not even warrant a
proposal. I don’t think allowing this was ever part of the conceptual model of
protocol extensions at any point in time (if you recall they were
It makes sense since protocol do not allow final. It doesn't make much
sense to allow the extensions to be exempt from this.
Classes that inherit from it can still provide their own implementation of
the supposed "final" protocol method which is contradictory to what final
means.
Protocol
Hey Folks, This draft proposal addresses starter bug SR-1762. I believe
this is in scope for Swift 4 since it impacts source compatibility. It's
not a very exciting proposal, but I think it will help make Swift a little
more consistent.