<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 Oct 19, 2016, at 4:53 AM, Jay Abbott <<a href="mailto:jay@abbott.me.uk" class="">jay@abbott.me.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Ok, good to know that's just a bug. But I still think that implicit @objc should be removed. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>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.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">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.<br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>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.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">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.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I think it’s a Swift language change: we should only infer ‘@objc’ when the API</div><div><br class=""></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>* Overrides of an @objc API,</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>* Satisfies a requirement of an @objc protocol, or</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>* Uses a Swift feature that requires the Objective-C runtime (e.g., @NSManaged, @IBAction, currently ‘dynamic’ although that feels wrong to me)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>It’s hard to justify pushing for this in Swift 4 stage 1, because changing defaults doesn’t affect the ABI, but it’s something I’d love to see us do at some point in Swift 4.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Doug</div></div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 at 03:51 Douglas Gregor <<a href="mailto:dgregor@apple.com" class="">dgregor@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
Sent from my iPhone<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
> On Oct 18, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Jay Abbott via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail_msg">
><br class="gmail_msg">
> Currently, if you extend a class that comes from obj-c, Swift assumes you want to make those methods available to call from obj-c code. If you add operators, you must declare them as @nonobjc otherwise the bridging header which is generated declares obj-c methods with the operator character as the method name, which isn't valid in obj-c and causes compile errors.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
The operators bit is an outright bug, which I believe has already been fixed in master.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
> I'm just wondering how others feel about this - my feeling is that a Swift developer should not have to know anything about obj-c when doing Swifty things to a bridged class from a framework (such as extending it). As far as they are concerned the framework class should compile the same as if it were fully implemented in Swift.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
Modulo bugs like the above, I think we already have this property? Swift declarations are exposed to Objective-C if they can be. One doesn't generally have to think about it unless you're trying to use those declarations from Objective-C.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
> Thoughts?<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
I actually thought you were going further with this, eliminating the inferred @objc except in cases where it's needed to work with an existing framework. That's something I'd love to see someone working on.<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
- Doug<br class="gmail_msg">
<br class="gmail_msg">
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>