<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 4, 2016, at 20:59, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">On Jan 4, 2016, at 8:54 PM, Kevin Lundberg <<a href="mailto:kevin@klundberg.com" class="">kevin@klundberg.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">I like this idea, but I would imagine that for an extension with many functions in it, requiring @nonobjc on each one would get tedious very fast. Could it be required (or at least allowed in addition to per-method annotations) at the extension level?:<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>@objc protocol P {}</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>@nonobjc extension P {</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>func foo() { }</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>func bar() { }</div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>func baz() { }<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>func blah() { }<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>// etc...</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>}</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I don’t know if this would have specific implementation ramifications over only doing this on each method, if extensions cannot already be modified with attributes. I can’t think of a case where I’ve seen annotations added to protocol extensions, or any other extensions for that matter.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We have some declaration modifiers (e.g., access-control modifiers) and attributes (e.g., availability) that distribute in this manner from the extension to its members. My only hesitation here is that @objc itself doesn’t distribute in this way, and I’d rather they not be inconsistent.</div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>I'd be much happier with this if we could do "@nonobjc extension", and I have no problems with "@objc extension" (even if it's rare). I suppose that would be a separate proposal.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Jordan</div><br class=""></body></html>