On Dec 10, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Paul Cantrell <[email protected]> wrote: >> This is looking less like a protocol by the day. The square-peg grooves in >> the round hole are getting deeper and more splintery with every revision. > > The flavor of DynamicMemberLookupProtocol with an explicit member requirement > sure does _read_ nicely! The fact that Chris left it present but commented > out in the proposal suggests that expressing it that way has some intuitive / > communicative value. > > This section laying out the reasons why it doesn’t work: > > > https://gist.github.com/lattner/b016e1cf86c43732c8d82f90e5ae5438#declare-an-explicit-subscript-requirement > > <https://gist.github.com/lattner/b016e1cf86c43732c8d82f90e5ae5438#declare-an-explicit-subscript-requirement> > > …reads like a todo list for rounding out protocols and generics. > > So, Chris, question: in the future, maybe circa Swift 6 or 7, is it likely > that generalized existentials + some sort of more robust handling of > “mutating” in protocols would make the explicit member requirement on > DynamicMemberLookupProtocol actually work?
It is possible. I’m not the best expert on the generics system, but I can’t imagine that it would be a priority in the near term. -Chris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
