on Tue Jun 28 2016, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose-AT-apple.com> wrote: >> On Jun 27, 2016, at 18:52, Tim Vermeulen <tvermeu...@me.com> 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 counted. The docs only mention the >> implementation of copy-on-write behaviour as a use case (which also >> happens to be what I’m using it for). > > I would expect that weak references are important to count for COW, > since you can observe changes through them. Dave?
This sort of depends on what you expect the semantics of your weak reference to be. It's not possible to take a weak reference to an Array; you can only take a weak reference to the NSArray it uses as a backing store. That's an Objective-C-only idea. Given an arbitrary NSArray on the Objective-C side, it might turn out to be an NSMutableArray, so if you want to avoid observing changes to it, in principle you need to copy it. So I think it's possible to argue that the weak reference count is not an issue here. -- -Dave _______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
