> On Dec 31, 2015, at 9:47 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
Can you put your proposal on GitHub under your swift-evolution fork? It’s
really hard to follow the current state of the proposal and the changes over
time.
> The forwardee needs to implement the members of the protocol but does not
> need to conform. The forwarder will receive forwarding implementations of
> the members, but again does not need to declare conformance. Forwarding is
> orthogonal to conformance, just as it is today when you manually write
> forwarding members today.
I cannot think of a time where I wanted this pseudo-conformance. The entire
purpose of forwarding, that I’ve ever wanted or seen at least, is to act as a
pass-through from the outer type’s conformance to a protocol to an internal
specific implementor of that protocol without having to write all of the
boiler-plate code to make that happen.
So I find it confusing that you say they are orthogonal.
-David
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
