[Review] SE-0070: Make Optional Requirements Objective-C only


(Chris Lattner) #1

Hello Swift community,

The review of "SE-0070: Make Optional Requirements Objective-C only" begins now and runs through May 2. The proposal is available here:

  https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0070-optional-requirements.md

Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at

  https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager.

What goes into a review?

The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:

  * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
  * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
  * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
  * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
  * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

More information about the Swift evolution process is available at

  https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md

Thank you,

-Chris Lattner
Review Manager


(Joe Groff) #2

I support the approach of making optional requirements ObjC-only. As a nitpick, it feels "wrong" to me to keep a decl modifier around for something that's only a compatibility feature and not natively supported. The proposal notes that a 'objcoptional' modifier was considered and rejected, but why not a single attribute, '@objcOptional' or something like that?

-Joe

···

On Apr 25, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Hello Swift community,

The review of "SE-0070: Make Optional Requirements Objective-C only" begins now and runs through May 2. The proposal is available here:

  https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0070-optional-requirements.md

Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at

  https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager.

What goes into a review?

The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:

  * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
  * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
  * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
  * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
  * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

More information about the Swift evolution process is available at

  https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md

Thank you,

-Chris Lattner
Review Manager
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Brent Royal-Gordon) #3

  * What is your evaluation of the proposal?

I think this proposed solution doesn't really address the problem. An @objcOptional keyword is intended to make it clear that the feature is fundamentally, intrinsically, for Objective-C compatibility. Separating the keywords doesn't do that; it still seems like an arbitrary and temporary limitation.

@objcOptional *does* make it clear that this is a compatibility feature. So would @objc(optional), although that would conflict with the @objc(selectorGoesHere) syntax.

  * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?

Yes.

  * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

I think it's neutral to the direction of Swift.

  * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?

N/A.

  * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

Participated in the previous discussion, read this one pretty quickly.

···

--
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies


(Douglas Gregor) #4

I support the approach of making optional requirements ObjC-only. As a nitpick, it feels "wrong" to me to keep a decl modifier around for something that's only a compatibility feature and not natively supported. The proposal notes that a 'objcoptional' modifier was considered and rejected, but why not a single attribute, '@objcOptional' or something like that?

It shouldn't be an attribute because it changes the type signature of references to the requirement.

  - Doug

···

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 25, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Joe Groff <jgroff@apple.com> wrote:

-Joe

On Apr 25, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Hello Swift community,

The review of "SE-0070: Make Optional Requirements Objective-C only" begins now and runs through May 2. The proposal is available here:

   https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0070-optional-requirements.md

Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at

   https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review manager.

What goes into a review?

The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of Swift. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:

   * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
   * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
   * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
   * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
   * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

More information about the Swift evolution process is available at

   https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md

Thank you,

-Chris Lattner
Review Manager
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


(Zachary Waldowski) #5

Perhaps, with this thought in mind, we should consider making @objc into
something more resembling the @available syntax. Getter selector, setter
selector, copying, etc. could live there as well.

Sincerely,
Zachary Waldowski
zach@waldowski.me

···

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016, at 01:15 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution wrote:

> * What is your evaluation of the proposal?

I think this proposed solution doesn't really address the problem. An
@objcOptional keyword is intended to make it clear that the feature is
fundamentally, intrinsically, for Objective-C compatibility. Separating
the keywords doesn't do that; it still seems like an arbitrary and
temporary limitation.

@objcOptional *does* make it clear that this is a compatibility feature.
So would @objc(optional), although that would conflict with the
@objc(selectorGoesHere) syntax.

> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?

Yes.

> * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?

I think it's neutral to the direction of Swift.

> * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?

N/A.

> * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?

Participated in the previous discussion, read this one pretty quickly.

--
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution