> On Dec 31, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com> wrote: > >>>>> In the second example here Forwarder does conform to P. The author of >>>>> Forwarder has the flexibility to specify whether conformance is desired >>>>> or not. >>>> >>>> There are ways to handle that, including factoring the APIs of interest >>>> out of P and into a private protocol Q, then declaring the Forwardee’s >>>> conformance to Q. Now, there’s an expressivity problem with our current >>>> access control system that you can’t use an internal or private protocol >>>> to provide public API, but that should be fixed separately. >>> >>> I'm not sure where Q comes into play in this specific example. The idea >>> here is that forwarding implementations of all members of P are synthesized >>> by the forward declaration. It is left up to Forwarder to decide whether >>> or not to declare actual conformance to P. I am also confused by "then >>> declaring the Forwardee’s conformance to Q" because we are discussing >>> Forwarder's conformance here, not Forwardee’s. >> >> Presumably both ends of the forwarding arrangement would have to conform to >> the same protocol, no? > > No. This is addressed in the proposal and the lazy collections motivating > example I replied with last night. I don’t think it’s a good idea to require > this.
My only point was that if we’re going to require the forwarder to conform, we may as well require it of the forwardee. I realize that you don’t want to require either conformance. -Dave
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
