We had some really really long talks about that before. Search for something like `AnyValue` and `ValueSemantics`. ;)
-- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 31. Juli 2017 um 07:33:36, Daryle Walker via swift-evolution (swift-evolution@swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org)) schrieb: > > > > On Jul 31, 2017, at 1:19 AM, Xiaodi Wu > > <xiaodi...@gmail.com(mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > Daryle, this discussion has indeed taken place before. One good place to > > start is the Google result for "swift evolution non-conformance". > > I added SR-5589, to request a counter protocol to AnyObject. > > > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Daryle Walker via swift-evolution > > <swift-evolution@swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org)> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Tino Heth > > > > <2...@gmx.de(mailto:2...@gmx.de)> wrote: > > > > > > > >> [Apologies if this is in Swift 4 already.] > > > >> > > > >> We can have generic parameters match a protocol. But I have an idea in > > > >> my head that involves the type NOT conforming to a protocol. I don’t > > > >> think we have a way currently to work with this. > > > > Why do you want that? > > > > When something conforms, you know that you can call the methods of the > > > > protocol, but without conformance, you can't do anything that's not > > > > possible using "is". > > > > Also: > > > > Don't forget retroactive conformance — you can never rely on > > > > non-conformance. > > > > > > I forgot about that last part. But my idea still has merit, due to why I > > > desired it in the first place. > > > > > > The “AnyObject” protocol is marked on all class types. All class types > > > conform to it, and it’s illegal (as I understand it) to put on a type > > > that isn’t already a class. I have been working on a “strong type-alias” > > > proposal, and it has a similar protocol. And I came up with ideas that > > > depend on a type NOT being a strong type-alias. That’s what prompted the > > > post. Note that these protocols cannot be retroactively applied, so > > > negation has merit. > > > > > > Since there’s a limited number of them, a better solution could be to add > > > a “NeverAnObject” protocol that’s automatically slapped onto non-class > > > types (and cannot be added onto class types). And like “AnyObject,” it > > > can be a base protocol, but this time it forces the conforming protocol > > > to not be for classes. > > — > Daryle Walker > Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie > darylew AT mac DOT com > > _______________________________________________ > 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
