Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] Replace `typealias` keyword with `associatedtype` for associated type declarations

> On 03 Jan 2016, at 07:38, Douglas Gregor wrote: > > * What is your evaluation of the proposal? I am in favor of this for the same reasons mentioned by the previous reviewers. > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > to

Re: [swift-evolution] RFC: Proposed rewrite of Unmanaged

I like "transfer" but I think this would be mostly helpful to people familiar with manual ref. counting in Obj-C. It's probably just as confusing to others and the visual similarity could be confusing as well (like with `Unmanaged`). But I also wouldn't be opposed to these if they were

Re: [swift-evolution] Make non-void functions @warn_unused_result by default

I am also strongly in favor of this proposal. There are probably enough valid use cases for a @suppress_unused_warning but personally I don't think pop() is a great example. I think a second method à la dropFirst/Last/... that returns Void would be better at communicating intent and allows

Re: [swift-evolution] Make non-void functions @warn_unused_result by default

> On 18 Dec 2015, at 23:23, Dave Abrahams wrote: >> >> I think a second method à la dropFirst/Last/... that returns Void would be >> better at communicating intent and allows pop() to retain the warning. > > Those are non-mutating methods that don’t return Void, FWIW.

Re: [swift-evolution] RFC: Proposed rewrite of Unmanaged

I like `UnsafeReference` as the new name of the type and I think the basic API is clearer than with `Unmanaged`. The initializers are much better than the static methods and `take(Un)RetainedValue()` were certainly less than ideal method names. > On 18 Dec 2015, at 02:37, Dave Abrahams via