Possibility to makes functions `required`

[Max_Desiatov]

@DevAndArtist

Non of that features solve the full set of issues you can solve with generic protocols. One of that is multiple conformances to the same generic protocol but with different generic paramaters. PATs cannot and will not solve that issue, nor will generalized existentials or opaque types.

Could you please clarify then how would "abstract classes" solve these issues? Are you proposing to introduce multiple inheritance together with "abstract classes"? Or what do you mean here by "abstract types"? How would syntax for those look and how those would work with multiple inheritance?

@DevAndArtist

That is true in general, but that is not the point I was making. By private storage I meant that you don't have to expose it at all, not even for sub-classes. You cannot not do this with protocols right now, and not sure if we ever will be able to do that.

If the storage is completely private then implementors of the protocol don't need to access it, right?

But I guess I see what you mean here. Not sure this is related to what we've discussed here in any way. It looks more like allowing users to define storage in extensions, which is currently discussed in a separate topic.