Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 6:12 PM, John McCall wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Matthew Johnson > > wrote: >>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 4:29 PM, Javier Soto >> >

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

Sent from my iPad > On Jun 22, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Javier Soto wrote: > > Hi Matthew. Sorry about that! I just saw your reply. I opened a PR with the > proposal already: https://github.com/apple/swift- > evolution/pull/376 > I would be happy to work with you on improving

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 4:29 PM, Javier Soto > > wrote: >> >> I'll work on a formal proposal for sealed by default :) > > I have already been planning a proposal for

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

Hi Matthew. Sorry about that! I just saw your reply. I opened a PR with the proposal already: https://github.com/apple/swift- evolution/pull/376 I would be happy to work with you on improving the proposal. I think your mention to sealed protocols is super interesting, but I think that could be

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

I'll work on a formal proposal for sealed by default :) On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:43 PM John McCall wrote: > On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:48 AM, John McCall wrote: > > On Jun

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Jose Cheyo Jimenez wrote: > Would sealed classes be able to be (unsafely) casted as non sealed classes? Sealed-ness doesn't change the type. Casting doesn't come into it. If you're asking if there would be a way to unsafely add subclasses,

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

Would sealed classes be able to be (unsafely) casted as non sealed classes? > On Jun 22, 2016, at 9:48 AM, John McCall via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Javier Soto > > wrote: >> How

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:59 AM, John McCall > > wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >>>

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Nate Cook wrote: > Pull Requests > > Additive > #346 Introducing with to the Standard Library Yeah, mea culpa -- but mea culpa with a reason. Method cascades are not going to be in 3. This is intentionally a stop-gap additive

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

You might consider the topic I started about access modifier on extensions. LINK Fixing this would be a breaking change, because: if you never explicitly set public modifier the visibility would break fixing implicit public modifier on extensions would mean fixing the problems with protocols +

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Javier Soto wrote: > How would we evaluate the proposal to introduce the "sealed" specifier for > classes (open within module, final outside of module) and default to that, in > terms of source-code compatibility? > From my point of view it

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:59 AM, John McCall > > wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >>>

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >> > wrote: >> >> Hi Everyone, >> >> As I mentioned before, the

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> Rationalizing base conversion protocol names. I personally don't have the >> heart to try to re-address the "LiteralConvertible" protocol naming thing >> again but this would be the

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > wrote: >> On Jun 21, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >> > wrote: >> >> Hi Everyone, >> >> As I mentioned before, the

[swift-evolution] Swift 3 vs "additive" proposals

Hi Everyone, As I mentioned before, the Swift 3 release is winding down. There is still time left to make changes, but it is very short. As such, we - as a community - need to stay focused on the goals for this release, principally the goal to get to source stability. It is very important