Extending declaration names for closures

[MutatingFunk (James Froggatt)]

That said, from the same topic we have your suggestion from Joe Groff:

@Joe_Groff

To me, compound names for closure properties and satisfying property requirements with methods aren't hacks, they're missing features we ought to support anyway. I strongly prefer implementing those over your proposed solution. It sounds to me like a lot of people using optional protocol requirements want the locality of control flow visible in the caller, for optimization or other purposes, and your proposed solution makes this incredibly obscure and magical.

We may get the feature, but I still wouldn't bring it up this far in advance.