You're right, I had to re-read the proposal a few times to grasp fully the intention there.
There was some discussion in the previous thread that this would be needed to infer @objc for implementations of @objc protocol requirements, but I see that this is inferred without any such annotation in this version of the proposal, which IMO is definitely reasonable. It seems @objcMembers is really geared towards introspection. That finally clicked just now. Would you consider, for those of us like me who are a little slower on the uptake, making this even more explicit in the spelling? I'm thinking along the lines of `@introspection(objc)`, which nicely leaves open the possibility of future introspection facilities that don't require Objective-C. I get that "members" is meant to decribe what's going on that's different from plain @objc, but for me it took a while to grasp the answer to the question, "Why is this another annotation, or in other words, when would I use this instead?" On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 13:30 Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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 > > 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 > > 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
