[swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?
matthew at anandabits.com
Mon May 9 18:07:11 CDT 2016
> On May 9, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote:
>> On May 9, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com <mailto:matthew at anandabits.com>> wrote:
>>> I would prefer to wait until indirect structs and improved CoW support have had more discussion.
>> I've been thinking a lot about Dave's desire to "mandate" that value semantic types must be value types and allowing us to use reference identity for equality of reference types. I would support that if these features were in place so I think shifting to those topics is a good next step for this discussion.
>> Along those lines, I've been thinking about a proposal to allow the indirect modifier on any property that has a value type. It may also be useful to allow the indirect modifier directly on struct and enum to allow type authors to indicate that all instances should be indirect. Do you think it would it be worthwhile to pursue this proposal now?
>> Can you elaborate on what you have in mind with regards to improved CoW support? Is there any chance of doing something here in Swift 3?
> I don’t have anything specific planned for CoW support in Swift 3, otherwise I would have started a separate thread :)
Sure. I’m still curious about ideas you have for the future.
I’m also interested in your feedback on whether a proposal around indirect is something worth pursuing right now or whether that is something that should wait until after Swift 3.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution