Great job thinking this all through (as usual), and I’ll be very happy to have
Optional and Array become Equatable. Here’s some of my thoughts on the library
evolution aspect of this:
- Removing a conditional conformance isn’t allowed, obviously.
- Adding a conditional conformance is just like adding an unconditional
conformance—it needs availability info.
- It would be nice™ if making a conditional conformance more general was
allowed. Since the plan doesn't allow overlapping conformances, I think this is
actually implementable: just don’t put the constraints in the symbol name. I
don’t know how to represent the backwards-deploying aspects of this right now,
so it probably makes sense to forbid it today, but I think it would be nice if
the implementation left the door open.
On that note, what happens here?
// Module Lib
public protocol Base {}
public protocol Sub: Base {}
public protocol Special: Sub {}
public struct Impl<T> {}
extension Impl: Special where T: Special {}
// Module Client
import Lib
extension Impl: Sub where T: Sub {}
I think this gets rejected because Impl already has a conformance to Sub—the
extension in Client, despite being less specialized, shows up too late to
actually declare this conformance “better”. Is that correct?
Jordan
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
