On Mar 11, 2015, at 1:07 AM, Quincey Morris <quinceymor...@rivergatesoftware.com> wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2015, at 22:57 , dangerwillrobinsondan...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> This is one extra thing you have to really get used to with Swift. You learn >> Swift, then learn that it effectively requires some constant special >> handling for NSObject's descendants. >> If you're using the frameworks that's a lot of optionals and implicitly >> unwrapped optionals. > > It’s not the optionals that are the problem, nor the implicit unwrapping. > Those things are just the symptoms in this case. > > The problem I was referring to was implicit forced downcasting. It seems so > arbitrary — both the fact that it downcasts without provocation, and the > (apparent, potential) randomness of what it downcasts to.
You know, this sounds like a good candidate for a collection contents annotation, similar to the nullability annotations that were recently added to Xcode. If there was a way to notate in an Objective-C header that this method returns an NSArray of NSStrings instead of just an NSArray of anything, it would make using Objective-C objects from Swift a lot easier. I made a Radar: http://openradar.appspot.com/20118084 <http://openradar.appspot.com/20118084> and here it is for Apple folks: rdar://20118084 Charles _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
