>> There is this sample code by Thorsten Seitz with a cached property which is >> quite simple and clear : >> https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170911/039684.html >> >> This is the sample code that had me enter the "worried" camp.' >> > I really like Thorsten's example, because it actually proves that requiring > explicit derivation is NOT the correct approach here. (Let's set aside the > fact that Optionals prevent synthesis because we don't have conditional > conformances yet, and assume that we've gotten that feature as well for the > sake of argument.) > > Let's look at two scenarios: > > 1) Imagine I have a value type with a number of simple Equatable properties. > In a world where synthesis is explicit, I tell that value type to "derive > Equatable". Everything is fine. Later, I decide to add some cache property > like in Thorsten's example, and that property just happens to also be > Equatable. After doing so, the correct thing to do would be to remove the > "derive" part and provide my custom implementation. But if I forget to do > that, the synthesized operator still exists and applies to that type. If > you're arguing that "derive Equatable" is better because its explicitness > prevents errors, you must also accept that there are possibly just as many > cases where that explicitness does *not* prevent errors.
It looks like it is true, but it is not. The implicit world is harder to deal with. And this is because in the implicit world, you never know if conformance has been synthesized or not. In the explicit world, you know: it's plain written down. To see this point, please play the game I've proposed to Xiaodi at https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170911/039710.html > 2) Imagine I have a value type with 10 Equatable properties and one caching > property that also happens to be Equatable. The solution being proposed here > says that I'm better off with explicit synthesis because if I conform that > type to Equatable without "derive", I get an error, and then I can provide my > own custom implementation. Yes. > But I have to provide that custom implementation *anyway* to ignore the > caching property even if we don't make synthesis explicit. Making it explicit > hasn't saved me any work—it's only given me a compiler error for a problem > that I already knew I needed to resolve. Oh, so compiler errors and warnings bring no information to you? :-) I'm impressed, but I'll keep on focusing on designing a language for average developpers, not only geniuses. Replay your argument and imagine that compiler outputs are useful to you. This will change your conclusion. Gwendal _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
