I'm missing those optional methods too, but protocol extensions sound like a better solution for this.
(For those suggesting a separate protocol, consider UITableView. How many protocols would it take to model all the optional delegate methods as separate protocols? Certainly more than 10, perhaps a few dozen.) I would welcome a standardized way to document the methods as optional-to-implement, though, beyond just requiring a protocol extension. My ideal option would be to allow the optional keyword and change it to simply require a default implementation in a protocol extension. If we don't want a language change, then perhaps a conventional doc tag? A. > On Mar 30, 2016, at 8:08 PM, Yuval Tal via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I find that optional protocol methods to be very useful. However, there is a > caveat -- it needs to be mapped to @objc. This puts a set of limitations, > such as: structures cannot be used as parameters as it does not map to > objective-c. What do you think about removing the requirement of using @objc > and allow to create optional methods without these limitations? > > Thank you, > > -Yuval > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
