<div dir="ltr">On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthew@anandabits.com" target="_blank">matthew@anandabits.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div><br><br>Sent from my iPad</div><span class=""><div><br>On May 7, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>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.<br><br>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.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>Why would it make sense to limit this to class-constrained protocols? It would obviously make sense to limit it to properties of class or class-constrained type but I see no reason why an arbitrary restriction to class-constrained protocols would make sense even if that was how it is most commonly used.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You're quite right.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><span class=""><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>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.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 11:00 Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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.<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
> On 7 May 2017, at 15:41, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> browse<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/swift-<wbr>evolution</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________</span><br><span>swift-evolution mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/swift-<wbr>evolution</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>