> On Jul 20, 2016, at 6:12 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> isUniquelyReferencedNonObjC checks that the object is a uniquely referenced
>> swift only class. It works on non-@objc classes but will return false: The
>> API will work for @objc-classes but return false.
>>
>> The reason for this combination is data structures like Array which might
>> hold an objc class which is not mutable. On a mutating operation you check
>> is it uniquely reference and a swift class - if the answer is yes and you
>> have enough storage you store to the current instance.
>>
>> expectTrue(isUniquelyReferencedNonObjc(SwiftKlazz()))
>> expectFalse(isUniquelyReferencedNonObjc(ObjcKlazz()))
>> var y = SwiftKlazz()
>> var z = [Any]
>> z.append(y)
>> z.append(y)
>> expectFalse(isUniquelyReferencedNonObjc(y)
>>
>> The simplification of this proposal just to remove the variant that had the
>> NonObjectiveCBase prerequisite.
>
>
> Your critique of the negation still holds though.
>
> So maybe we still rename it from isUniquelyReferencedNonObjC to
> isUniquelyReferencedSwiftReference?
What’s the difference between a “SwiftReference” and AnyObject?
The current name is the literal meaning. The intent of being literal and
awkward is to encourage users to read the comments. This isn’t something people
should be embedding in their program logic anyway. It’s very special purpose.
That said, something like “isUniquelyReferencedNativeSwift” would work assuming
that’s semantically correct (“native" Swfit objects do not inherit from
NSObject). “isKnownUniquelyReferenced” would be fine with a warning in the doc
comment that it may always return false for objc objects.
Andy
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
