> On 8 May 2017, at 09:03, Goffredo Marocchi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Over my dead body --random list dweller ;) > > Seriously though, I think the labels should be made to matter not removed if > they do not matter now. I think this goes to a path where we should not take > protocols as they should be true contracts for the API in question (default > method in protocols make me think we have to write unit tests for a protocol > which sounds mad... oh well) although some may argue the ownership info is > implementation detail and on that point I may agree with you ;).
Agreed. But we don’t have the time to bring meaning to them in time for Swift 4. Its better to make the language consistent now (disallowing a keyword which currently has no meaning) and allow ourselves to reintroduce later with correct semantics. > Sent from my iPhone > > On 8 May 2017, at 07:57, David Hart via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> Sounds great! It should be an easy one to get through, >> >>> On 8 May 2017, at 08:35, Greg Spiers <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:26 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7 May 2017, at 20:12, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Exactly the trap I fell into when I found this issue. >>> >>> >>> Yup, +1. Who wants to write a proposal? >>> >>> I'd like to give it a try. I can write up the proposal to remove the >>> keywords in protocols and will post a draft here for further discussion. >>> >>> >>>> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 11:00 Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > browse >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
