on Fri Sep 30 2016, Russ Bishop <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sep 29, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> > >> Personally, I consider the first one to be a fairly-low-risk >> extension to SE-0139 that’s borderline bug-fix. We already know that >> those types have weak numeric representations in Objective-C because >> they come from Objective-C, so losing some of the type info by >> bridging to Objective-C is (IMO) falls out of having strong types in >> Swift for weaker types in Objective-C. >> >> The second one makes me a little nervous, I think because it weakens >> typing for types defined in Swift. These types don’t naturally have >> Objective-C counterparts, so if we’re going to weaken the types, it >> feels like we should only do so via some explicit conformance (e.g., >> to a publicly-available form of _ObjectiveCBridgeable). >> >> - Doug >> > > I’m up for reviving the ObjectiveCBridgeable proposal :)
Okay, but IMO the API of that protocol is wrong. Any public interface should look something like _CustomObjectiveCBridgeable per https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/87944ed2449ec7314ed8690b8894ce96ad339ebf#diff-9b6ea5442068d139aa4193a59b6e4b91 -- -Dave _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
