Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@KingOfBrian

KingOfBrian/Remove_final_support_in_protocol_extensions.md

Last active March 12, 2017 02:08
Show Gist options
  • Star 0 You must be signed in to star a gist
  • Fork 0 You must be signed in to fork a gist
  • Save KingOfBrian/6f20c566114ac0ef54c8092d80e54ee7 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save KingOfBrian/6f20c566114ac0ef54c8092d80e54ee7 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
Remove support for final in protocol extensions
Raw
Remove_final_support_in_protocol_extensions.md

Remove final support in protocol extensions

Introduction

This proposal disallows the final keyword when declaring functions in protocol extensions.

Motivation

In the current version of Swift, the final keyword does not modify dispatch behavior in any way, and it does not generate an error message. This keyword has no use in Swift's current protocol model. Functions in protocol extensions cannot be overridden and will always use direct dispatch.

This bug was listed as a Swift Evolution starter bug by the core team.

Jordan Rose described the history behind this behavior:

We originally required `final` to signify that there was no 
dynamic dispatch going on. Once we started allowing protocol extension 
methods to fulfill requirements, it became more confusing than useful.

Detailed design

If adopted, the compiler will flag the use of the final keyword on functions declared within a protocol extension, and emit an error or warning. This behavior is consistent with final use in structures and enumerations.

Source compatibility

This change will impact source compatibility. Current use of final in protocol extensions will raise a compilation error and should be addressed by source migration and fixits. When running in Swift 3 mode, a warning will be generated instead of an error.

Effect on ABI stability

This proposal does not affect ABI stability.

Effect on API resilience

This proposal does not affect API resilience.

Alternatives considered

There are no alternatives considered at this time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment