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
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:
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
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.
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:
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
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.