> On May 5, 2016, at 6:55 PM, Dave Abrahams <dabrah...@apple.com> wrote: > > > on Thu May 05 2016, David Sweeris <davesweeris-AT-mac.com> wrote: > >> I meant leave `struct` and `enum` the way they are, and introduce a >> `different_struct` and `different_enum` (placeholder names, of course) >> which enforced the “no reference-semantics” rules. > > I would be pretty strongly opposed to that. That's almost the opposite > of what I'm proposing. > >> I’m inclined to think we should adopt your “no reference-semantics” >> rule, but I’m not entirely sure what the impact would be. Adding new >> types side-steps the issue, at the cost of increasing the complexity >> of the language/compiler. I’m unsure if that'd be a worth-while >> trade-off. > > The whole point of my proposal is to simplify the model. Oh, ok… I think I got your ends and your means backwards in my head.
- Dave Sweeris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
