I am currently working on updating some protocol APIs in a framework that's
shared among several of my projects. The issue here is that the protocol has an
extension with default implementation. For example:
protocol Foo {
func doSomethingWithArray(_ arr: [String])
}
extension Foo {
func doSomethingWithArray(_ arr: [String]) {
print(arr)
}
}
With this you can easily write
struct Bar: Foo { }
The issue comes when the struct actually implements the method and you decide
to rename it in the protocol:
struct Bar: Foo {
func doSomethingWithArray(_ arr: [String]) {
fatalError()
}
}
protocol Foo {
func doSomething(with arr: [String])
}
extension Foo {
func doSomething(with arr: [String]) {
print(arr)
}
}
The code still compiles, yet the behavior of the app changes incredibly. There
is no way (to my knowledge) of marking some protocol members as deprecated.
I've tried the "obvious" solution:
extension Foo {
@available(*, deprecated, renamed: "doSomething(with:)")
func doSomethingWithArray(_ arr: [String]) {
self.doSomething(with: arr)
}
}
But unfortunately, this doesn't emit any warning on the Bar structure. I
personally believe that this is a major flaw, given that Swift is being claimed
as Protocol-Oriented language, there is no way to declare that a protocol
method is deprecated/renamed. Mainly with protocols with default
implementations (or in ObjC optional).
I know there were discussions about marking members that should implement the
protocol requirements with a keyword, but unfortunately, most members here were
against such a proposal as it would introduce a lot of visual clutter.
I'm suggesting that implementing a same-named member from a protocol marked as
"deprecated" that also has a default implementation would emit a warning.
Does anyone else view this as an issue in the language?
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
