Definitely a welcome change from me (+1). But this proposal makes me curious about the impact on the `AnyObject` protocol?
let string = "foo" let nsString = string as AnyObject nsString.dynamicType // _NSCFConstantString.Type NSString().dynamicType // __NSCFConstantString.Type // there are two different types? This sample won’t bridge anymore if SE-0083 will be accepted. Can we also drop the @objc from `AnyObject` protocol and leave it as an implicit protocol for classes? (Personally I’d rename `AnyObject` to `AnyReference` if Swift will introduce other reference types.) This change might allow the replacement of the `class` keyword from protocols with the implicit `AnyObject` protocol, which can be discussed in this thread: Should we rename "class" when referring to protocol conformance? One more thing I’d like to ask: is there any possibility of adding a new `bridge` keyword, which would allow explicit bridging to a different language type (ObjC, etc. if there are any more languages we can bridge to [C or maybe one day C++])? T `bridge` U T? `bridge` U? Wouldn’t this move the bridging mechanism to its own area? The ugly NSError pattern could be rewritten and migrated to: do { try something() } catch let error { handle(error `bridge` NSError) } Is such a change complicated, what do you think? -- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 4. Mai 2016 bei 01:50:54, Joe Groff via swift-evolution (swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb: Thanks everyone for the initial round of feedback. I've submitted a draft proposal: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/289 https://github.com/jckarter/swift-evolution/blob/remove-bridging-conversion-dynamic-casts/proposals/XXXX-remove-bridging-from-dynamic-casts.md -Joe _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution