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

[Adrian Zubarev]

+1 Yes please, get rid of the `class` keyword from protocols already and replace it with better implicit protocols.  

I posted the idea two weeks ago, but no one answered to it: https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160418/015568.html  

Replacing `class` with something like `protocol AnyReference` is the first step to add a few more implicit protocols like `AnyValue` to Swift. We could build value or reference type specific libraries and overload correctly.

--  
Adrian Zubarev  

Am 2. Mai 2016 um 15:55:15, David Sweeris via swift-evolution (swift-evolution at swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)) schrieb:

>  
> 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. _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160503/00c9b14b/attachment.html>