[swift-evolution] [discussion] Change the behavior of @objc on a class?
laurent.mihalkovic at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 23:50:01 CDT 2016
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:04 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> Hey, all. An engineer at Apple noticed the following behavior:
>> 1. class Foo: NSObject → exposed to Objective-C, Swift-style (mangled) runtime name
>> 2. @objc class Foo: NSObject → exposed to Objective-C, Swift-style (mangled) runtime name
>> 3. @objc(Foo) class Foo: NSObject → exposed to Objective-C, unmangled runtime name
>> (and 4. @objc class Foo → illegal, classes must have ObjC heritage to be @objc.)
>> They specifically observed that (1) and (2) have the same behavior, and suggested that maybe (2) should be shorthand for (3).
>> - There aren't two ways to spell (1).
>> - Removing the mangling (and module uniquing) from the runtime name is probably one of the most common uses of @objc on a class.
>> - It's a source-breaking change, for all that the "@objc" in (2) is redundant.
>> - For protocols, (1) and (2) are not equivalent, because @objc isn't inherited there.
>> - Mangling is used to namespace class names at run time; if you drop that, the ObjC name should probably have a prefix. (This applies more to frameworks than apps, though.)
> I’m -1 on this, because bare “@objc” in other contexts means “make sure this is exposed to Objective-C, but I don’t want to be explicit about the name” while “@objc(something)” means “make sure this is exposed to Objective-C, and ‘something’ is the name”.
Please'o'please ... I find it useful for complexifying simple swift names into the kind that typically exists on the objc side.
> - Doug
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution