[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0070: Make Optional Requirements Objective-C only

Zach Waldowski zach at waldowski.me
Tue Apr 26 10:20:36 CDT 2016

Perhaps, with this thought in mind, we should consider making @objc into
something more resembling the @available syntax. Getter selector, setter
selector, copying, etc. could live there as well.

  Zachary Waldowski
  zach at waldowski.me

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016, at 01:15 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via
swift-evolution wrote:
> > 	* What is your evaluation of the proposal?
> I think this proposed solution doesn't really address the problem. An
> @objcOptional keyword is intended to make it clear that the feature is
> fundamentally, intrinsically, for Objective-C compatibility. Separating
> the keywords doesn't do that; it still seems like an arbitrary and
> temporary limitation.
> @objcOptional *does* make it clear that this is a compatibility feature.
> So would @objc(optional), although that would conflict with the
> @objc(selectorGoesHere) syntax.
> > 	* Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
> Yes.
> > 	* Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
> I think it's neutral to the direction of Swift.
> > 	* If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
> N/A.
> > 	* How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
> Participated in the previous discussion, read this one pretty quickly.
> -- 
> Brent Royal-Gordon
> Architechies
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list