> On Jul 11, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jul 10, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Jasdev Singh via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hey Swift Evolution! >> >> Drafted up a small proposal that harmonizes the use of static functions and >> static function properties in appropriate protocol conformance scenarios: >> >> https://github.com/Jasdev/swift-evolution/blob/static-func-static-var/proposals/XXXX-static-func-and-static-var-func-protocol-conformance.md >> >> <https://github.com/Jasdev/swift-evolution/blob/static-func-static-var/proposals/XXXX-static-func-and-static-var-func-protocol-conformance.md> >> >> Would love any feedback or edge cases I may have missed! > > This is an additive proposal, thus out of scope for Swift 3. > > Beyond that, as someone downthread mentioned, the major thing missing here is > a strong motivation for *why* we should do this. You say only "we see that > the protocol requirements and conformances are actually equivalent and should > both be valid.” but adding redundant ways to say the same thing motivation.
I meant: "but adding redundant ways to say the same thing is not a motivation.” -Chris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
