> On Aug 19, 2017, at 1:29 PM, Michel Fortin via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > I'm not actually that interested in the meaning of value semantics here. I'm > debating the appropriateness of determining whether something can be done in > another thread based on the type a function is attached to. Because that's > what the ValueSemantical protocol wants to do. ValueSemantical, as a > protocol, is whitelisting the whole type while in reality it should only > vouch for a specific set of safe functions on that type.
To state more explicitly what I think you might be implying here: In principle, we could have developers annotate value-semantic *members* instead of value-semantic *types* and only allow value-semantic members to be used on parameters to an actor. But I worry this might spread through the type system like `const` in C++, forcing large numbers of APIs to annotate parameters with `value` and restrict themselves to value-only APIs just in case they happen to be used in an actor. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
