Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0069: Mutability and Foundation Value Types

Hi Rod, > On May 4, 2016, at 4:59 AM, Rod Brown wrote: > > > Tony, > > With regard to this proposal, is there any reason that this proposal did not > include an OrderedSet value type? I suspect perhaps this is an oversight? > > - Rod > We considered it, but did

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0069: Mutability and Foundation Value Types

> On 25 Apr 2016, at 19:27, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Hello Swift community, > > The review of "SE-0069: Mutability and Foundation Value Types" begins now and > runs through May 4. The proposal is available here: > > >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0069: Mutability and Foundation Value Types

> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? +1 I concur with David Hart: Foundation becoming the base first-class cross platform library seemed concerning when Foundation was build from a paradigm of “Object Everything”. This fits far better with the Swift philosophy of value types

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0069: Mutability and Foundation Value Types

> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? +1 I’ve always been bothered with the idea of Foundation becoming a first-class cross-platform library while breaking the core principles of Swift promoting value types. I’m extremely happen with this proposal. > * Is the problem being

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0069: Mutability and Foundation Value Types

100% in favor of this proposal. IMO, Foundation should feel as natural to use as the Swift standard library; providing native Swift value types to represent many Foundation objects certainly brings us much closer to accomplishing that goal. My only concern is that the Swift wrappers should