On Jul 10, 2014 10:10 PM, "Steven Degutis" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I understand where you're coming from in wanting
> more flexibility in the API and in Lua itself. I especially understand
> it having written a few ObjC bridges myself, being no stranger to
> NSInvocation and family.
> I'm also quite disillusioned about such bridges in the first place,
> having come to the same conclusion that Apple apparently has (as
> they've deprecated all bridges and made NSInvocation inaccessible via
> Swift), namely that bridges between even mildly disparate programming
> languages are inherently broken and should be avoided except in the
> rarest of prototypical cases.
Do you think discouraging NSInvocation is to make static analysis easier? If so, would this have an impact on the App Store control process?