# Empty initializer protocol **URL:** \ **Category:** Pitches\ **Created:** [April 30, 2018, 4:15pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/empty-initializer-protocol/12263 "2018-04-30T16:15:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 5
**Author:** ![Letan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/swift/user_avatar/forums.swift.org/letan/32/4982_2.png) [@Letan](https://forums.swift.org/u/Letan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 9:45pm UTC](https://forums.swift.org/t/empty-initializer-protocol/12263/5 "2018-04-30T21:45:30Z")
[Here's the old thread](https://forums.swift.org/t/pitch-add-the-defaultconstructible-protocol-to-the-standard-library/4771) about this, the consensus seemed to be that it was not important enough to include. For a workaround @allevato had a nice solution. If I may point you to it: > [@\[Pitch\] Add the DefaultConstructible protocol to the standard library](https://forums.swift.org/t/pitch-add-the-defaultconstructible-protocol-to-the-standard-library/4777/5): > > Tony, could you, please, share your approaches? Maybe it will open the door to finding an easy solution to the issue. ...and I'll tell you what it is since I fat-fingered the send button too soon. :) There have been a couple times where I've written code that needed to generically serve instances of a type T, and in each of those cases—thanks to Swift's support for first-class functions and initializers-as-functions—I found it to be cleaner to have my factory take a () -\> T as a parame… --- _[View the full topic](https://forums.swift.org/t/empty-initializer-protocol/12263)._