[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0156: Class and Subtype existentials

T.J. Usiyan griotspeak at gmail.com
Fri Mar 3 09:44:41 CST 2017

What is your evaluation of the proposal?

Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to


Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?


How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or
an in-depth study?
    I've followed the thread and gave the proposal a quick reading.

This has reminded me that we are still without a means to specify that a
type have value semantics, though.

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> And what if we ever decide that restricting protocols to structs or enums
> should be allowed as well?
> AnyValue (_might_ happen with value sub typing)?
> Or maybe there are secret plans to add new reference types to Swift?
> Classes aren’t the only reference types in Swift, functions are also
> reference types, but there is no way to express something like _any
> function_.
> The question is, if the *new* reference types will be objects or something
> different. Otherwise we’ll simply need to add AnyReference or something
> similar to that.
> There was a huuuuge talk about AnyValue vs. AnyObject last year, and I’m
> totally convinced with AnyObject. The Any prefix also indicates that it’s
> an existential which is correct in this context.
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170303/8d04a36f/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list