> On Apr 1, 2017, at 2:52 AM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
Right. We’ll infer @objc when the declaration implements a requirement of an
@objc protocol.
> 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?”
Introspection is a legitimate use case, but it’s not the only use case for
@objcMembers, and it doesn’t really convey what the attribute does—it makes the
members @objc.
- Doug
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 13:30 Douglas Gregor <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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
