> On 17 Aug 2017, at 11:42, Robert Bennett <rltbenn...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
> Chris mentions that the intent was to mimic a default implementation in a
> constrained protocol extension, with one extension per type that doesn’t
> define its own ==/hashValue while conforming to Equatable/Hashable.
> Constrained extensions are allowed to use type information from the
> constraint, so I don’t think there is an issue here.
And I disagree; this isn't a constraint extension either, not even close, we're
talking here about automatic behaviour based upon variables the protocol knows
literally nothing about, in a way that can result in new errors that are
currently impossible (as you can't currently conform to Equatable without
providing some kind of code to implement it).
It is no more comparable to a constrained extension than it is to a default
implementation, as it is neither of these things; both of those are well
defined by their very nature, this instead is utterly arbitrary. There is no
justification that will make that any less true.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
