Definitely a welcome change from me (+1). But this proposal makes me curious
about the impact on the `AnyObject` protocol?
let string = "foo"
let nsString = string as AnyObject
nsString.dynamicType // _NSCFConstantString.Type
NSString().dynamicType // __NSCFConstantString.Type // there are two different
types?
This sample won’t bridge anymore if SE-0083 will be accepted. Can we also drop
the @objc from `AnyObject` protocol and leave it as an implicit protocol for
classes? (Personally I’d rename `AnyObject` to `AnyReference` if Swift will
introduce other reference types.)
This change might allow the replacement of the `class` keyword from protocols
with the implicit `AnyObject` protocol, which can be discussed in this thread:
Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance?
One more thing I’d like to ask: is there any possibility of adding a new
`bridge` keyword, which would allow explicit bridging to a different language
type (ObjC, etc. if there are any more languages we can bridge to [C or maybe
one day C++])?
T `bridge` U
T? `bridge` U?
Wouldn’t this move the bridging mechanism to its own area?
The ugly NSError pattern could be rewritten and migrated to:
do {
try something()
} catch let error {
handle(error `bridge` NSError)
}
Is such a change complicated, what do you think?
--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
Am 4. Mai 2016 bei 01:50:54, Joe Groff via swift-evolution
([email protected]) schrieb:
Thanks everyone for the initial round of feedback. I've submitted a draft
proposal:
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/289
https://github.com/jckarter/swift-evolution/blob/remove-bridging-conversion-dynamic-casts/proposals/XXXX-remove-bridging-from-dynamic-casts.md
-Joe
_______________________________________________
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
