Better yet, since we previously started to require “@objc dynamic” instead of “dynamic” with the notion that perhaps there would be some future non-ObjC dynamism, we *could* have it spelt “dynamic member(_:)”.
But this is all just spelling now; I think the overall design is compelling in its elegance and power. On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 20:22 Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 25, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Just to talk to myself a bit here, but I’ve come to realize that the right > design really is to have a simple empty marker protocol like this: > > > If you're reaching this point. why have a marker protocol at all? Why not > treat `subscript(dynamicMember:)` specially on any type that has it, or > have an `@dynamicMember subscript(_:)` attribute, or introduce an entire > new `dynamicMember(_:)` declaration? > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
