I’d like to pitch the following two language changes. Both of them are technically possible today if you manually write thunks for the relevant protocol requirements, but it would be nice if we allowed them to be written directly:
1) Allow closures to satisfy function requirements in protocols
protocol MyProtocol {
func run(param: Int) -> String
}
struct MyStruct : MyProtocol {
var run : (Int)->String // Satisfies requirement MyProtocol.run
}
Among other things, it would make writing type-erased wrappers in the style of AnyCollection much easier. The only obvious niggle is that the argument label wouldn’t be required when invoking the closure directly. The labels have no type-system significance, but it does make it subtly easier to write less generic code than you intend do. We could solve this by having code-completion favour protocol methods in this situation, or simply to require the label when invoking a closure which implements a known protocol requirement.
2) Allow functions with default parameters to satisfy function requirements in protocols
protocol Sportsplayer {
func goalsScored() -> Int
}
struct SoccerPlayer: Sportsplayer {
struct GoalType : RawOptionSet {
static let Shot = GoalType(0x1)
static let Volley = GoalType(0x10)
static let Header = GoalType(0x100)
static let Any = GoalType(0x111)
}
// Default value .Any means this conforms to Sportsplayer
func goalsScored(type: GoalType = .Any) {
//...
}
}
struct Footballer: Sportsplayer {
struct GoalType : RawOptionSet {
static let Touchdown = GoalType(0x1)
static let FieldGoal = GoalType(0x10)
static let Any = GoalType(0x11)
}
// Default value .Any means this conforms to Sportsplayer
func goalsScored(type: GoalType = .Any) {
//...
}
}
I often find that I want to add some optional, implementation-specific parameter to a function which implements a protocol requirement. That’s currently not possible, and it’s a bit annoying.
- Karl