Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] Improving unspecified generic usability

> On Aug 7, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Logan Shire via swift-evolution > wrote: > > One of my longstanding frustrations with generic types and protocols has been > how hard it is to work with them when their type is unspecified. > Often I find myself wishing that I could

[swift-evolution] How does "Sequence.joined" work?

I was looking at random items at SwiftDoc.org , and noticed the “FlattenBidirectionalCollection” structure. It helps implement some versions of “joined” from Sequence (probably when the Sequence is also a BidirectionalCollection). The directions for the type state that

Re: [swift-evolution] How does "Sequence.joined" work?

All this means is that `joined()` does not create an array that contains the new result. It's only as magic as the COW semantics on arrays. > Le 7 août 2017 à 21:12, Daryle Walker via swift-evolution > a écrit : > > I was looking at random items at SwiftDoc.org

Re: [swift-evolution] overridable members in extensions (was: Why you can't make someone else's class Decodable)

> On Aug 2, 2017, at 23:21, Goffredo Marocchi wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 3 Aug 2017, at 01:09, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution > > wrote: > >> >> 'required' initializers are like methods: they may

[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Improving unspecified generic usability

One of my longstanding frustrations with generic types and protocols has been how hard it is to work with them when their type is unspecified. Often I find myself wishing that I could write a function that takes a generic type or protocol as a parameter, but doesn’t care what its generic type

Re: [swift-evolution] [Pitch] New Version of Array Proposal

> We don’t want to add conformance then find out that was a mistake. I think we also don't want to create restrictions based on future additions that might never happen... > Besides that they can’t be Sequences, unless you throw away allowing > parallel/vector processing in the future. (That

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Explicit Non-Default-Implemented Protocol Requirements

On 02.08.2017 14:11, Víctor Pimentel Rodríguez via swift-evolution wrote: On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution > wrote: That would work as well, but it has the downside of forcing a potentially huge

Re: [swift-evolution] [planning] [discussion] Schedule for return of closure parameter labels (+ world domination ramble)

I read many times the "most users don't care about this" objection but I always considered it more like an argument for postponing something than removing it completely from the Swift equation (I believe I also read words like that from yourself, Chris), because there is a point about

Re: [swift-evolution] [planning] [discussion] Schedule for return of closure parameter labels (+ world domination ramble)

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On Aug 7, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Elviro Rocca com> wrote: > > > > I read many times the "most users don't care about this" objection but I > always considered it

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-dev] Reminder: Swift.org scheduled outages for bug reporting, mailing lists, website and CI

Hi Everyone! Update: — bugs.swift.org is back online. — lists.swift.org is back online. — swift.org website is back online with latest toolchains, the older toolchains will be available by Tuesday Aug 8th 2017. — ci.swift.org is back online, but we’re still

Re: [swift-evolution] [planning] [discussion] Schedule for return of closure parameter labels (+ world domination ramble)

> On Aug 7, 2017, at 12:43 AM, Elviro Rocca > wrote: > > I read many times the "most users don't care about this" objection but I > always considered it more like an argument for postponing something than > removing it completely from the Swift equation (I

Re: [swift-evolution] Why you can't make someone else's class Decodable: a long-winded explanation of 'required' initializers

> On Aug 6, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Charles Srstka wrote: > >> On Aug 3, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Itai Ferber via swift-evolution >> > wrote: >> >> Thanks for putting these thoughts together, Jordan! Some additional