[swift-evolution] Ownership on protocol property requirements

Xiaodi Wu xiaodi.wu at gmail.com
Sun May 7 13:12:55 CDT 2017

Today these keywords have no meaning inside a protocol, so clearly it
should be an error to use it in that context. I agree with Jordan that the
error should be on the protocol.

It's entirely a different conversation whether the keyword should have
meaning or not. If it should, it seems to me it should be limited to
protocols that are limited to classes. But that's an additive feature we
can discuss later.

The source-breaking bug fix that is more pressing today is removing
meaningless keywords that can be misleading to users, because they have no
effect but look like they should.
On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 11:00 Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> It would be useful to have a longer discussion on this as... I think that
> weak has a place there and should be enforced as a protocol is the public
> facing interface/api for the types who decide to adopt it.
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On 7 May 2017, at 15:41, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >
> > browse
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170507/a3d0fce0/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list