[swift-evolution] [pitch] make @nonobjc the default
jgroff at apple.com
Wed Oct 19 12:37:13 CDT 2016
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 9:35 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 4:53 AM, Jay Abbott <jay at abbott.me.uk <mailto:jay at abbott.me.uk>> wrote:
>> Ok, good to know that's just a bug. But I still think that implicit @objc should be removed.
> Oh, I agree that implicit @objc should be removed. I suspect it’s responsible for a nontrivial amount of code bloat and unnecessary Objective-C selector collisions.
>> For bridged classes with obj-c-specific interfaces (for example a method that takes a selector), it would be better if the Swift-side interface was forced to make a Swifty interface that hides it. This way, the people maintaining an interface have to either a) write a wrapper with a Swifty interface; or b) explicitly cop out and use @objc and inform their users that they may also have to do the same in some situations; or c) persuade their employers to let them port the whole thing to pure Swift, which sounds like a lot of fun and is probably what they really want to do :D.
> I don’t quite view explicit @objc as a cop-out—it’s a useful tool to limit the amount of glue code one needs to write.
>> I'm not really sure how this works though, at what level this is applied? Maybe it's more to do with the default build settings in Xcode than Swift itself? I just would rather see Swift stand alone by default.
> I think it’s a Swift language change: we should only infer ‘@objc’ when the API
> * Overrides of an @objc API,
> * Satisfies a requirement of an @objc protocol, or
> * Uses a Swift feature that requires the Objective-C runtime (e.g., @NSManaged, @IBAction, currently ‘dynamic’ although that feels wrong to me)
It might also be nice if referring to a method with #selector automatically tried to make it @objc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution