QF5690 added a comment. > I think the problem is there are valid places to use assign on object types > (especially delegates).
Isn't it better to have unsafe_unretained there? I thought unsafe_unretained keyword is introduced specifically for that kinds of things. Ok, here is my last point :) Attributes like `strong`, `retain`, `copy` is commonly reffered as "ownership attribute". But `assign` does not tells anything about ownership, and from that point of view, it is semantically wrong to have `assign` on object types, and having `unsafe_unretained` that actually tells something about ownership – correct. If that's not the case, I can't understand the reason why `unsafe_unreatined` even exists. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D44539 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
