Sent from my iPad
> On May 7, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Today these keywords have no meaning inside a protocol, so clearly it should > be an error to use it in that context. I agree with Jordan that the error > should be on the protocol. > > It's entirely a different conversation whether the keyword should have > meaning or not. If it should, it seems to me it should be limited to > protocols that are limited to classes. But that's an additive feature we can > discuss later. Why would it make sense to limit this to class-constrained protocols? It would obviously make sense to limit it to properties of class or class-constrained type but I see no reason why an arbitrary restriction to class-constrained protocols would make sense even if that was how it is most commonly used. > > The source-breaking bug fix that is more pressing today is removing > meaningless keywords that can be misleading to users, because they have no > effect but look like they should. >> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 11:00 Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> It would be useful to have a longer discussion on this as... I think that >> weak has a place there and should be enforced as a protocol is the public >> facing interface/api for the types who decide to adopt it. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On 7 May 2017, at 15:41, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > browse >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
