on Sun Apr 24 2016, Chris Lattner <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone > >> >>> On Apr 22, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> 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. Doesn't that argue for @objc(optional) ? -- Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
