> On Sep 20, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> on Tue Sep 20 2016, Karl <razielim-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the best way is to prefix the member name with the protocol, e.g:
>>
>> protocol MyProto {
>> var aVariable : Int
>> func aFunction()
>> }
>> class MyClass : MyProto {
>> var MyProto.aVariable : Int
>> func MyProto.aFunction() { … }
>> }
> ...
>> CC-ing Dave A, to understand better if this fits with the vision of protocols
>
> I generally agree with Doug. The canonical way to indicate “this
> method/property/type implements a requirement of protocol P” should be
> to define the entity in an extension that also adds conformance to P.
> If that's inadequate indication in some way we should find a way to
> enhance it. I wouldn't mind the notation above, but only as a fallback,
> not a reuquirement.
>
> --
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
Indeed this is exactly how C# handles Interfaces (protocols). The default is
the exact same way Swift works - by matching names. If there is a collision you
specify Protocol.memberName. Its simple and in the years I was writing C# code
it was flexible enough to cover most reasonable scenarios, without adding a
bunch of boilerplate.
Russ
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
