On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 9:43 AM Etan Kissling via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Would maybe stick with @abstract or @deferred instead of the verbose
@requires_override as the keyword.
Those keywords are known from other languages.
+1 with the rest, though.
It's really a pain to not have access to abstract classes.
My workaround for similar cases is
- Put function definitions with deferred implementation into protocols.
- Mark initializer of base class as private to prevent instantiation of
the incomplete class.
- Put subclasses into same file as base class.
- In subclass, inherit from both the base class and the protocol, and
override initializer as public.
Also agree with the irrelevance for UITableViewController. The class works
perfectly fine without the overrides.
Etan
On 14 Dec 2015, at 00:27, Kevin Ballard via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Seems to me this doesn't actually make sense on protocols at all. The
scenario of a base superclass like UITableViewController that conforms to a
protocol but only makes sense if its children override methods doesn't
actually have anything to do with the protocol at all, as it's certainly
not true any class that conforms to UITableViewDelegate/DataSource wants
subclasses to override methods, that's only true of UITableViewController.
Given that, the proposed @abstract is actually something that would make
sense to put on the implementation of a method in a class, not on a
protocol. There's simply no such thing as an abstract protocol. And when
put on a method, it would probably be better to just call it
@requires_override, because that's all it means.
All that said, it doesn't actually make sense to put the attribute on
UITableViewController's methods either. And the reason for that is that if
you use a storyboard with static cells, you can have a
UITableViewController that functions perfectly fine without overriding any
of the UITableViewDelegate/DataSource methods. So requiring that a subclass
implement any of those methods would actually be wrong.
So overall, there are use-cases for a @requires_override attribute, but
UITableViewController actually isn't one of them (in fact, I don't think
anything in UIKit/Foundation qualifies).
Regarding `required`, that's not appropriate because `required` means that
every single descendant class must provide an implementation. And it's only
allowed on init methods because the whole point of `required` is to remove
the special-cased behavior of init for subclassing (e.g. that it's not
inherited by subclasses). There's no other place besides init() where it
makes sense to require every single descendant class to provide an
implementation because every other method will get inherited (and even if
your base class's implementation should always be overridden, if your child
overrides it, your grandchild certainly doesn't have to!).
-Kevin Ballard
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015, at 02:16 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch via swift-evolution > wrote:
How about reusing the keyword "required" for this? It's already used (and
has a similar meaning) for initializers.
I think NSSecureCoding is a good example of a use case.
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Arthur Ariel Sabintsev via > swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
TL;DR: Force explicit protocol conformance of non-optional methods for
child classes on an opt-in basis.
Currently, a child class that inherits their parent class' protocol
conformations are not explicitly required to override their parent classes
implementation of a protocol. For example, a custom class,
MyTableViewController, does not explicitly have to override the
non-optional methods of the protocols (i.e., UITableViewDataSource,
UITableViewDelegate) to which UITableViewController conforms.
For many protocols, the superclass implementation of a protocol method may
be enough. Therefore, this feature should off by default, and only enabled
if the creator of the protocol requires it (for whatever reason). I suggest
using a new `@abstract` attribute to designate if a protocol requires
explicit conformance for children of a conforming parent class. This choice
of naming for the attribute is along the lines of what other languages call
an Abstract Class, which is what I'm trying to have added to Swift in this
fairly long-winded post.
@abstract protocol P: class {
// All methods defined in here would need to be explicitly overridden
by the conforming class's children.
}
If you want to have optional methods in your protocol, then using the
@abstract attribute gets kind of messy, as you also have the @objc
attribute.
@abstract @objc protocol P: class {
// All non-optional methods defined in here would need to be
explicitly overridden by the conforming class's children.
}
Thoughts?
Best,
Arthur / Sabintsev.com <http://sabintsev.com/>
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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