<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=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>Yeah, but the compiler could handle NSObject as a special case. Are there enough other special cases that it is worth documenting and exposing a fragile attribute on classes to the user?</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><div>Pitching in here.. currently if you do something remotely complex with protocols and generics you need a bunch of classes for type erasure.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I don’t want to think about what happens if you annotate a class with the "open” access modifier as @fragile/@inlineable though. Would @fragile become transitive? :)</div></div></div></body></html>