[swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?

[James Froggatt]

Agreed, AnyObject seems like all we need to limit protocols to reference types.

------------ Begin Message ------------ 
Group: gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution 
MsgID: <m2mvo7ow1s.fsf at fripp.apple.com> 


on Mon May 02 2016, David Sweeris <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> I was just thinking that:
>
>    protocol Foo : reference {}
>
> might be more to the point than:
>
>    protocol Foo : class {}
>
> I know that it’s currently a moot point because classes are the only*
> reference-semantics type of type in Swift, but it’s conceivable that there might
> some day be others. Anyway, I’m not saying it’s a big deal or anything, I’m just
> trying to think of any source-breaking changes we might want to make before
> Swift 3 drops, and this seems like an easy one.
>
> - Dave Sweeris
>
> * I’m not actually sure this is true. I have a very vague recollection about
> some protocols getting reference semantics in certain circumstances, but the
> memory is so hazy I’m not sure I trust it. Also I can’t remember if the
> “indirect� keyword in enums affects the semantics.

Personally I have always felt “class� was an oddball special case here
that's unneeded because we have a perfectly good protocol that means the
same thing: AnyObject.

-- 
Dave

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution at swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
��››

------------- End Message ------------- 



From James F