> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? I think this proposed solution doesn't really address the problem. An @objcOptional keyword is intended to make it clear that the feature is fundamentally, intrinsically, for Objective-C compatibility. Separating the keywords doesn't do that; it still seems like an arbitrary and temporary limitation.
@objcOptional *does* make it clear that this is a compatibility feature. So would @objc(optional), although that would conflict with the @objc(selectorGoesHere) syntax. > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > to Swift? Yes. > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? I think it's neutral to the direction of Swift. > * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar > feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? N/A. > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? Participated in the previous discussion, read this one pretty quickly. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
