> On Mar 31, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hello Swift community,
>
> The second review of "SE-0160: Limiting @objc inference" begins now and runs
> through April 2, 2017. The proposal is available here:
>
>
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0160-objc-inference.md
>
> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0160-objc-inference.md>
>
> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews
> should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at:
>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>
> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review
> manager.
>
> What goes into a review?
>
> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review
> through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of
> Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to
> answer in your review:
>
> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>
> I do think this current iteration is an improvement. I have to say, though,
> that I prefer Doug Gregor's spelling of `@implicitobjc` over `@objcMembers`.
> It think the former explains the feature a little better and also happens to
> be subjectively nicer-looking.
I think @objcMembers is more precise: it doesn’t imply that the class itself is
@objc, just that the members are @objc.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
