[swift-evolution] Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?
matthew at anandabits.com
Tue May 10 09:24:56 CDT 2016
Sent from my iPad
> On May 10, 2016, at 12:53 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> 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.
That's what I suspected and why I asked before taking time to write something up. I'll be patient and look forward to this in the future.
I should add that if a decisions on the changes Dave is looking for must happen in Swift 3 or never I support doing it. While I am concerned about the boilerplate I would prefer some boilerplate in the short term to a suboptimal design in the long term.
> 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.
That sounds like the right priorities to me as well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution