[swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?
davesweeris at mac.com
Thu May 5 20:46:00 CDT 2016
> On May 5, 2016, at 6:55 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrahams at apple.com> wrote:
> on Thu May 05 2016, David Sweeris <davesweeris-AT-mac.com> wrote:
>> I meant leave `struct` and `enum` the way they are, and introduce a
>> `different_struct` and `different_enum` (placeholder names, of course)
>> which enforced the “no reference-semantics” rules.
> I would be pretty strongly opposed to that. That's almost the opposite
> of what I'm proposing.
>> I’m inclined to think we should adopt your “no reference-semantics”
>> rule, but I’m not entirely sure what the impact would be. Adding new
>> types side-steps the issue, at the cost of increasing the complexity
>> of the language/compiler. I’m unsure if that'd be a worth-while
> The whole point of my proposal is to simplify the model.
Oh, ok… I think I got your ends and your means backwards in my head.
- Dave Sweeris
More information about the swift-evolution