[Accepted] Amendment to SE-0466

[8675309]

@mbrandonw

most of the issues we were dealing with were fixed by reducing how much we baked sendability into the library's protocols.

I think this is related to a question I asked a while back of why we allow a protocol definition itself to have actor (or sendable) requirements, rather then only the individual protocol requirements:

Why are protocols annotated with @MainActor vs only their requirements?

@MainActor protocol ImAProtocol { func doThing(with str: String) func doAnotherThing() } Why do we allow annotation of an entire protocol as @MainActor vs their requirements individually? I can't think of why the isolation of the entire type implementing the protocol is relevant at all, as long as we call the requirements on the correct actor. I'd think we can still pass the implementing type between actors without issue until we're actually calling it. protocol ImAProtocol { @Main…