@NSExceptional I realize that’s the current plan, but that doesn’t mean it will only be used for that purpose.
@lapcatsoftware It was necessary to have different spellings, not necessary to have different implementations.
@lapcatsoftware Yep. There will probably never be more parity than there is now.
@lapcatsoftware Right, but they don’t need to do that.
@lapcatsoftware But presumably the APIs will diverge unless they want to forever limit SwiftFoundation to what Objective-C can do.
@lapcatsoftware It could if they wanted to vend an Objective-C API.
@lapcatsoftware And I thought we were taking about implementations, not API.
@lapcatsoftware Agreed, but only because one appends “Ref”, and I’m not sure how this is relevant…
@lapcatsoftware Maybe at some point they’ll re-unify by having the Objective-C version wrap the Swift.
@lapcatsoftware And it’s not as though the CF and NS stuff was fully unified, anyway. One has wrapped the other, switched. Duplicate imples.
@lapcatsoftware Yeah, not ideal. But if they really are serious about Swift, it *should* be used to write this stuff, not wrapping ObjC.
@lapcatsoftware How would you introduce the parallel structs without removing the NS?
@lapcatsoftware Yes, but it’s better than having a totally separate solution for Swift on other platforms.
@DanFrakes Looks great. Thanks!