Perhaps, with this thought in mind, we should consider making @objc into something more resembling the @available syntax. Getter selector, setter selector, copying, etc. could live there as well.
Sincerely, Zachary Waldowski [email protected] On Tue, Apr 26, 2016, at 01:15 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution wrote: > > * 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 _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
