[swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?
davesweeris at mac.com
Tue May 10 07:04:11 CDT 2016
> On May 10, 2016, at 00:53, Andrew Trick via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On May 9, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> I’m not prepared to champion this for Swift 3, I think there are enough other important proposals on the table, and this is an area that requires careful design. If I did have to pick features that we touched on in this thread from most to least important I would say:
> 1. Indirect structs
> 2. Mutability of reference/class types
> 3. Automation or annotations for CoW types.
> 4. Annotations that constrain function side effects.
Yes, but with possible exception of #2, none of those sound like source-breaking changes. I'd imagine that changing what types of properties value-types can have will break a few things (although I certainly could be wrong).
- Dave Sweeris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution