on Tue Jun 28 2016, Jordan Rose wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 18:52, Tim Vermeulen 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 unowne
on Tue Jun 28 2016, Andrew Trick wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 9:32 AM, Jordan Rose via swift-users
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 18:52, Tim Vermeulen wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Thanks for your reply. It didn’t clear up everything, though. The
>>> official documentation says "Weak referenc
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 9:32 AM, Jordan Rose via swift-users
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 18:52, Tim Vermeulen 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.”,
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 9:32 AM, Jordan Rose via swift-users
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 18:52, Tim Vermeulen 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.”,
on Tue Jun 28 2016, Jordan Rose wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 18:52, Tim Vermeulen 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 unowne
> On Jun 27, 2016, at 18:52, Tim Vermeulen 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 counte
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
b
Hi, Tim. The purpose of the isUniquelyReferenced checks is to see whether any
changes to the properties of the object can be observed from elsewhere in this
program. Therefore, I would expect it to return ‘false’ when there are weak (or
unowned) references present, i.e. I think the bug is that w
class EmptyClass {}
var strongReference = EmptyClass()
weak var weakReference = strongReference
print(isUniquelyReferencedNonObjC(&strongReference)) // true
print(isUniquelyReferencedNonObjC(&weakReference)) // false
I expected both print statements to print true.
I realise that this is proba
