[swift-evolution] [Review #2] SE-0160: Limiting @objc inference
dgregor at apple.com
Fri Mar 31 13:30:52 CDT 2017
> On Mar 31, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> Hello Swift community,
> The second review of "SE-0160: Limiting @objc inference" begins now and runs through April 2, 2017. The proposal is available here:
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0160-objc-inference.md <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0160-objc-inference.md>
> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at:
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager.
> What goes into a review?
> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
> I do think this current iteration is an improvement. I have to say, though, that I prefer Doug Gregor's spelling of `@implicitobjc` over `@objcMembers`. It think the former explains the feature a little better and also happens to be subjectively nicer-looking.
I think @objcMembers is more precise: it doesn’t imply that the class itself is @objc, just that the members are @objc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution