> Le 13 sept. 2017 à 06:28, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 23:26 Gwendal Roué <gwendal.r...@gmail.com > <mailto:gwendal.r...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > Le 13 sept. 2017 à 04:05, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com > > <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com>> a écrit : > > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Gwendal Roué <gwendal.r...@gmail.com > > <mailto:gwendal.r...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >> In none of those cases, the compiler emits any warning. It's thus easy > > >> to forget or miss the problem, and uneasy to fix it (you'll need a > > >> runtime failure to spot it, or a thorough code review). > > >> > > >> I hope you agree with this last sentence. This unbalance between the > > >> easiness of the mistake and the easiness of the fix should ring a bell > > >> to language designers. > > > > > > Suppose instead this were about a protocol named Fooable and a > > > requirement called foo() that has a default implementation. Everything > > > you just talked about would apply equally. Am I to understand that you > > > are opposed to default implementations in general? If so, then that’s got > > > nothing to do with synthesized Equatable conformance. If not, then you’ll > > > have to justify why. > > > > Sounds like a good argument, until one realises that if a protocol does not > > provide a default implementations for a method, it may be because a default > > implementations is impossible to provide (the most usual case), or because > > it would be unwise to do so. > > > > And indeed, the topic currently discussed is not if we should remove or not > > default implementations. Instead, the question is: is it wise or not to > > provide an *implicit* default Equatable/Hashable/XXX implementation? > > > > Right, _that_ is the question. It was asked during review for the proposal, > > and the agreed upon answer is _yes_. > > Wrong. This whole thread is about *explicit* synthetic behavior;. If an > agreed proposal has to be invalidated in the way, _so be it_. > > Gwendal > > Explicit (e.g., "AutoEquatable") and implicit synthetic behavior were both > considered during the proposal which approved the implicit behavior. This > question has been asked and answered.
We're in a new thread now, which may drive the core team into reconsidering a previous decision. It happens. You may remember a funny debate about SE-0110. In the end a question that had been asked and answered got a whole new answer. We're all here to improve the language. That's why I sometimes participate in this mailing list. Gwendal
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
