> On Jun 14, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Haravikk via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > >> On 14 Jun 2017, at 19:08, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:01 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> Sorry, initially sent off-list: >> >> I think this proposal is a great idea. But I would vote for the alternative >> of only having default and implicitly deducing extend when default is not >> specified: >> >> This wouldn't work with the fundamental design decision that these are >> optional keywords, which IMO is absolutely key. > > Hmm, I'm inclined to agree with David that only the default keyword really > seems like it's necessary, and that extend can be implied. > > My preference would be to just add the default keyword, and have breaches > treated as warnings using the current behaviour, which we can eliminate and > elevate to an error in future once people have had a chance to change their > code.
I would support this if the core team is willing to take on the code churn it will cause. > _______________________________________________ > 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
