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

[Adrian Zubarev]

I’d love to see Swift go in this direction with protocols:

                   +-------+
                   |  Any  |
                   +---+---+
                       |
         +-------------+-------------+
         |                           |
  +------+-------+             +-----+----+
  | AnyReference |             | AnyValue |
  +------+-------+             +-----+----+
         |                           |
+--------+---------+  ....................................
| AnyObject (ObjC) |  : Optionally Swift could also have :
+------------------+  :              |                   :
                      :      +-------+--------+          :
                      :      |                |          :
                      : +----+----+     +-----+-----+    :
                      : | AnyEnum |     | AnyStruct |    :
                      : +----+----+     +-----+-----+    :
                      ....................................

-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 3. Mai 2016 bei 18:42:15, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution (swift-evolution at swift.org) schrieb:

+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) 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
_______________________________________________
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/20160503/52114793/attachment.html>