> On May 9, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Andrew Trick <atr...@apple.com> wrote: > > >> On May 9, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com >> <mailto:matt...@anandabits.com>> wrote: >> >>> I would prefer to wait until indirect structs and improved CoW support have >>> had more discussion. >> >> I've been thinking a lot about Dave's desire to "mandate" that value >> semantic types must be value types and allowing us to use reference identity >> for equality of reference types. I would support that if these features >> were in place so I think shifting to those topics is a good next step for >> this discussion. >> >> Along those lines, I've been thinking about a proposal to allow the indirect >> modifier on any property that has a value type. It may also be useful to >> allow the indirect modifier directly on struct and enum to allow type >> authors to indicate that all instances should be indirect. Do you think it >> would it be worthwhile to pursue this proposal now? >> >> Can you elaborate on what you have in mind with regards to improved CoW >> support? Is there any chance of doing something here in Swift 3? > > I don’t have anything specific planned for CoW support in Swift 3, otherwise > I would have started a separate thread :)
Sure. I’m still curious about ideas you have for the future. I’m also interested in your feedback on whether a proposal around indirect is something worth pursuing right now or whether that is something that should wait until after Swift 3. > -Andy
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
