> On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Apr 22, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Not an expert on Obj-C compatibility in Swift by any means, but this >> reads like it's largely a change of nomenclature. To me, though, >> `objcoptional` reads exceedingly poorly. Why not emphasize the Obj-C >> compatibility angle by requiring the `@objc` attribute to precede each >> use of `optional`? (In other words, effectively rename `optional` to >> `@objc optional`.) > > That is a great idea.
Doesn’t this have the same problem as the current (Swift 1/2) implementation? People will continue to believe that it is a bug that you must specify @objc. -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
