Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0117: Default classes to be non-subclassable publicly

> On Jul 5, 2016, at 6:53 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> >> I think Kevin Lundberg is right to worry about testability, but I don't >> think that has to prevent this change. Instead, we should permit `@testable` >> imports to subclass/override

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0115: Rename Literal Syntax Protocols

[Proposal: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0115-literal-syntax-protocols.md ] > On Jul 3, 2016, at 9:52, David Sweeris via swift-evolution >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Remove destructive consumption from Sequence

on Tue Jul 05 2016, David Waite wrote: >> On Jul 1, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 30, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: >>> >>> Q: Why not allow endIndex to have a different type from

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0115: Rename Literal Syntax Protocols

on Tue Jul 05 2016, Jordan Rose wrote: > [Proposal: > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0115-literal-syntax-protocols.md > > ] > >> On Jul 3, 2016, at 9:52, David

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0115: Rename Literal Syntax Protocols

> On Jul 5, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote: > > > on Tue Jul 05 2016, Matthew Johnson wrote: > >>> On Jul 5, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> on Tue Jul 05 2016, Jordan Rose >>

Re: [swift-evolution] Class mutation model and value-constrained protocols

> > If we are going to maintain source stability after Swift 3, it seems > that we either need to address this now, or decide that it won't be > addressed, because of the “viral const” problem. > IMHO immutable instances and value vs reference allocation are separate concerns. Just like you

<    1   2