> On Jun 27, 2016, at 18:52, Tim Vermeulen <tvermeu...@me.com> wrote: > > Thanks for your reply. It didn’t clear up everything, though. The official > documentation says "Weak references do not affect the result of this > function.”, which suggests that weak (and unowned) references intentionally > aren’t counted. The docs only mention the implementation of copy-on-write > behaviour as a use case (which also happens to be what I’m using it for).
I would expect that weak references are important to count for COW, since you can observe changes through them. Dave? > > Couldn’t there just a be a function that returns the reference count of a > given object as an Int? It would make everything a lot easier (i.e. it > wouldn’t need inout because it can just create a reference to that object, > find the reference count, then subtract 1). As we’ve said for a long time in Objective-C, asking for the reference count of an object is meaningless. isUniquelyReferenced only works because it’s conservative: because it only checks for “exactly 1”, it’s safe from threading issues and autorelease pools. We do not plan to add a -retainCount equivalent to Swift. Jordan _______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
