<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi, everyone. What do you think about dropping support for 'weak' in struct properties? This would fix a semantic issue—'let' structs containing weak properties won't change out from under you—and (AFAICT) would make all values trivially movable, which is a great quality to have.<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This wouldn't change local variables, top-level variables, or class properties, just structs. It <i class="">would</i> make having an array of weak references a little harder, but honestly we should have proper weak-supporting collections anyway; as I understand it the behavior you usually want is auto-compacting rather than leaving a hole. (Evidence: Cocoa has NSHashTable for weak sets and NSMapTable for dictionaries with weak keys and/or values; there's no variant of NSArray that supports weak references other than by making a custom CFArray and being very very careful how you access it.)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Anyway, thoughts? It's not really my department but it cleans up the same areas that are being affected by struct resilience.</div><div class="">Jordan</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">P.S. I know this would have to go through swift-evolution for real. I just want to know if it's a silly idea to begin with.</div></body></html>