Skip to content

[docs] Clarify wording around adding new associatedtypes to protocols. #33696

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 31, 2020
Merged

[docs] Clarify wording around adding new associatedtypes to protocols. #33696

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 3 additions & 1 deletion docs/LibraryEvolution.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -578,7 +578,9 @@ There are very few safe changes to make to protocols and their members:
- The ``@discardableResult`` and ``@warn_unqualified_access`` attributes may
be added to or removed from a function requirement.
- A new ``associatedtype`` requirement may be added (with the appropriate
availability), as long as it has a default implementation.
availability), as long as it has a default implementation. If the protocol
did not have one or more ``associatedtype`` requirements before the change,
then this is a `binary-compatible source-breaking change`.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should these be double-backticks?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is right, double backticks are for formatting code, single backticks are for references. Elsewhere in this document:

https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/a0cdeb5fecf30cfb01d31b5b8a4360851bdac0b9/docs/LibraryEvolution.rst#L88-L89

https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/a0cdeb5fecf30cfb01d31b5b8a4360851bdac0b9/docs/LibraryEvolution.rst#L162-L163

- A new non-type requirement may be added (with the appropriate availability),
as long as it has an unconstrained default implementation. If the requirement
uses ``Self`` and the protocol has no other requirements using ``Self`` and
Expand Down