Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] Revision review: SE-104: Protocol-oriented integers

Sent from my iPhone > On 21 Jul 2017, at 23:57, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > wrote: > > It is no fun to call people out on this, but I'll do it if no one else will. > If someone starts a conversation to talk about X in a public forum, anyone is > free to join

Re: [swift-evolution] Change default compiler fix for not-unwrapped Optional from ! To ?

> On 14 Jul 2017, at 08:05, Rod Brown via swift-evolution > wrote: > > > >> On 14 Jul 2017, at 2:36 pm, Robert Bennett via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> When writing Swift code, it is not uncommon to forget to unwrap optionals. >>

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Associated Type and Generic One-to-One Mapping

> On 24 Jun 2017, at 08:50, David Sweeris via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On Jun 23, 2017, at 5:28 PM, David Moore via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> I do indeed have quite a few real examples of this, such prompted me to >> bring

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0110

> On 15 Jun 2017, at 06:01, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On Jun 12, 2017, at 10:07 PM, Paul Cantrell wrote: >> >> What’s the status of this Chris’s double parens idea below? It garnered some >> positive responses, but the

Re: [swift-evolution] Revisiting SE-0110

On 16 Jun 2017, at 01:55, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 17:43 David Hart wrote: On 16 Jun 2017, at 00:41, David Hart wrote: On 15 Jun 2017, at 19:28, Chris Lattner

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Introducing role keywords to reduce hard-to-find bugs

On 14 Jun 2017, at 23:22, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution wrote: >> Yes, I think we are all in vigorous agreement about this. The question is >> whether, at this point in Swift's evolution, a wide-ranging migration due to >> a new required keyword will be well

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Introducing role keywords to reduce hard-to-find bugs

> El 14 jun 2017, a las 20:01, David Hart via swift-evolution > escribió: > > I think this proposal is a great idea. But I would vote for the alternative > of only having default and implicitly deducing extend when default is not > specified: it would mimic how

Re: [swift-evolution] Yet Another Access Control Pitch: Flexible Scoping

> El 15 abr 2017, a las 5:31, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > escribió: > > If we're to talk about ideas and needs, my favored access control design is > one that pares back to only two modifiers: public and internal. Either the > thing is public API, or it is not.

Re: [swift-evolution] Type-based ‘private’ access within a file

> El 5 abr 2017, a las 14:13, Michel Fortin via swift-evolution > escribió: > >> Le 5 avr. 2017 à 0:02, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >> a écrit : >> >> - fileprivate should really become much more rare, which makes it more >>

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review #2] SE-0160: Limiting @objc inference

Enviado desde mi iPhone > El 4 abr 2017, a las 22:04, Douglas Gregor escribió: > > >> On Apr 4, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Víctor Pimentel Rodríguez via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> Sorry to be late :/ >> >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Chris