Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Slava Pestov wrote: > > > On Dec 22, 2017, at 7:09 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Chris Lattner > wrote: > >> >> On Dec 22, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Xiaodi Wu

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

> On Dec 23, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >>> >>> I'm quite sure that the reason you inverted your "abiPublic" example is >>> because of the same issue. Intuitively, you would want to mark something as >>> "available" in version N and then maybe some special

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

I’m hugely in favor of a path forward that involves extending existing language constructs instead of introducing new ones or throwing around a bunchannotations. I want to say that I like extending `@available` (because I do), but it kind of breaks my mental model of the flags to `@available`

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

On Dec 22, 2017, at 9:12 PM, Slava Pestov wrote: >> Deployment platform makes more sense, but I still can't envision a real use >> case. What sorts of `bar()` would hypothetically be necessary for iOS 15 but >> not 16? Why would a third-party library need to increase its

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

> On Dec 22, 2017, at 9:08 PM, Slava Pestov wrote: > > > >> On Dec 22, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> When and if we add private cases to enums, we’ll need to be able to >> associate an availability range with an “exhaustive” marker.

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

> On Dec 22, 2017, at 7:09 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Chris Lattner > wrote: > >> On Dec 22, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >>

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

> On Dec 22, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > When and if we add private cases to enums, we’ll need to be able to associate > an availability range with an “exhaustive” marker. When/if that happens, > then yes, we should do so through @available(exhaustive:

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Dec 22, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > In short, respectfully request that you at least add this approach to the >> "alternatives considered” section. >> >> >> So, does anyone have any

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

> On Dec 22, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > >> In short, respectfully request that you at least add this approach to the >> "alternatives considered” section. > > So, does anyone have any strong objections to Chris’s proposal? > > From an implementation standpoint,

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Thanks for reviewing the proposal! > > On Dec 20, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Ted

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

> On Dec 21, 2017, at 11:08 PM, Slava Pestov wrote: >> I am hugely supportive of the features that these attributes enable, but I >> think that the spelling of this is absolutely wrong, and I’m disappointed >> that the extensive discussion we’ve had for months about this

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

> On Dec 21, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Tony Parker via swift-evolution > wrote: > > public > public(inlinable) > public(external) // *where we define external to be what abiPublic is now — > more bike shedding welcome I think the downside is that public(external) or

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

Hi Chris, Thanks for reviewing the proposal! > On Dec 20, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> On Dec 20, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Ted Kremenek > > wrote: >> >> The review of "SE-0193 -

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

Thanks for this reply, Chris. It addresses most of my concerns with the current design - scalability (with the attributes), confusion (over the meaning of ABI) and changes in declarations as things change. I think your approach is a far better solution. > On 21 Dec 2017, at 6:14 pm, Chris

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

I was going to write up a detailed response to this as well, but Chris did it for me. In general, I agree that we need the feature. However, I believe that the name “ABI” is too specific and does not accomplish the primary purpose of naming this thing — which is to allow people to understand

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

+1 thanks for your response Chris, it seems to me that it addresses the need this PR is trying to address and it does make it so in a scalable way. I would strongly hope your feedback is added to the proposal and shapes the final solution. Sent from my iPhone > On 21 Dec 2017, at 07:14, Chris

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

> On Dec 20, 2017, at 4:19 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote: > > The review of "SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization" begins now > and runs through January 5, 2018. > > The proposal is available here: > >