+1 Yes please, get rid of the `class` keyword from protocols already and replace it with better implicit protocols.
I posted the idea two weeks ago, but no one answered to it: https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20160418/015568.html Replacing `class` with something like `protocol AnyReference` is the first step to add a few more implicit protocols like `AnyValue` to Swift. We could build value or reference type specific libraries and overload correctly. -- Adrian Zubarev Am 2. Mai 2016 um 15:55:15, David Sweeris via swift-evolution (swift-evolution@swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org)) schrieb: > > I was just thinking that: > > protocol Foo : reference {} > > > > might be more to the point than: > > > protocol Foo : class {} > > > > > I know that it’s currently a moot point because classes are the only* > reference-semantics type of type in Swift, but it’s conceivable that there > might some day be others. Anyway, I’m not saying it’s a big deal or anything, > I’m just trying to think of any source-breaking changes we might want to make > before Swift 3 drops, and this seems like an easy one. > > - Dave Sweeris > > * I’m not actually sure this is true. I have a very vague recollection about > some protocols getting reference semantics in certain circumstances, but the > memory is so hazy I’m not sure I trust it. Also I can’t remember if the > “indirect” keyword in enums affects the semantics. > _______________________________________________ > 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
