Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] Swift for Data Science / ML / Big Data analytics

2017-10-31 Thread Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
I tried to send a response to this earlier today but it apparently didn’t get out. If it did, then I apologize in advance for the dupe: > On Oct 30, 2017, at 10:47 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: // not magic, things like Int, String and many other conform to this. protocol Pythonable { >>

Re: [swift-evolution] “Integer” protocol?

2017-10-31 Thread Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
Right, these issues were discussed when the proposal was introduced and reviewed three times. In brief, what was once proposed as `Integer` was renamed `BinaryInteger` to avoid confusion in name between `Integer` and `Int`. It was also found to better reflect the semantics of the protocol, as certa

Re: [swift-evolution] “Integer” protocol?

2017-10-31 Thread Max Moiseev via swift-evolution
Just for the reference. There was a lengthy discussion here in the mailing list back when the proposal was introduced: https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170109/thread.html#30191

[swift-evolution] “Integer” protocol?

2017-10-31 Thread Daryle Walker via swift-evolution
Looking at Apple’s Swift (4) docs at their SDK site, shouldn’t there be an “Integer” protocol between Numeric and BinaryInteger? Without that, there’s no solution for Integer types that are either a non-binary radix or a non-radix system (besides being over-broad with Numeric). What would move

Re: [swift-evolution] continuations - "extensions on steroids" idea

2017-10-31 Thread Wallacy via swift-evolution
Like Adam said, this make much more sense than "classprivate./typeprivate"... +1 for me. You just create another 'bucket'! ;) Em ter, 31 de out de 2017 às 08:19, Mike Kluev via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> escreveu: > On 31 October 2017 at 06:57, Goffredo Marocchi wrote: > >> I

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] Swift for Data Science / ML / Big Data analytics

2017-10-31 Thread Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:55 PM, John McCall wrote: > > I can think of two things that could tip the scale of the discussion: > > a) The big question is whether we *want* the ability to write custom > rule-of-5 style behavior for structs, or if we want it to only be used in > extreme cases (like

Re: [swift-evolution] classprivate protection level?

2017-10-31 Thread Mike Kluev via swift-evolution
On 31 October 2017 at 02:29, Adam Kemp wrote: > > No, grep would be sufficient as well. The issue is still which files to > grep in the first place. Everything else comes after that. If you manually > read files looking for usages of an API you’re changing then I feel sorry > for you. You’re doin

Re: [swift-evolution] continuations - "extensions on steroids" idea

2017-10-31 Thread Mike Kluev via swift-evolution
On 31 October 2017 at 06:57, Goffredo Marocchi wrote: > I like the IB use case :). > > my favourite one would probably be continuations used for protocol adoption - no longer the trip to the main class needed to add a variable: continuation DataSource of MyViewController: UITableViewDataSource {

Re: [swift-evolution] [SPM] Roadmap?

2017-10-31 Thread Jean-Christophe Pastant via swift-evolution
Ok so seems to me like there are 2 big needs that came up often on this thread: better integration for iOS and for C/C++. For iOS, Build settings would definitely be a huge plus as it would allow to generate a full configured xcodeproj file (and thus build/sign/distribute the app). Not perfect but