> Am 06.06.2016 um 00:59 schrieb Charles Srstka <[email protected]>: > >> On Jun 5, 2016, at 5:46 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Am 05.06.2016 um 20:31 schrieb Charlie Monroe via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]>: >>> >>> While I agree with Michael that nowadays, a lot of stuff that doesn't need >>> to be, is done async, which leads to a giant thread pool per app and >>> developers nowadays do not think of the cost of inter-thread communication >>> (i.e. each dispatch_(a)sync has its cost, even though it's a light-weight >>> thread), I agree with Charles that something like suggested does indeed >>> help debugging issues with multi-thread apps. >>> >> >> I agree that it may help in a few cases. But I think the change is "not >> significant enough to warrant a change in Swift". It adds yet another >> keyword to the language that every new dev has to learn about, and the >> problem it solves can more elegantly be solved by writing more elegant code. > > Okay, what’s the “more elegant” way to write a function that uses networking > or XPC, or that requires user feedback from a sheet?
That's really hard to answer in the general case. I think real proposals should contain concrete, realistic examples that show the benefit of the proposal. It's really hard to argue against a proposal if there is no such example. User feedback from a sheet is one of the few examples where asynchronous programming makes sense: But I cannot see how a `@required` annotation would be useful in that setting. -Michael > > Charles > _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
