Re: [swift-evolution] 100% bikeshed topic: DictionaryLiteral

library. > > The net effect is the same as what we have been discussing, but a shift in > viewpoint makes it clear that the ABI-stable library is the new thing we are > adding, and the existing standard library can continue to serve a valuable > purpose going forward. > &g

Re: [swift-evolution] 100% bikeshed topic: DictionaryLiteral

> at least one of the deprecated APIs? Then the code signing verification you > mention wouldn’t be a part of the apps that use deprecated APIs. > > If this is not possible because all OS-level .dylibs MUST be included for > whatever reason then just disregard me, as I’m not an

Re: [swift-evolution] 100% bikeshed topic: DictionaryLiteral

> On Jan 12, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote: >> Hi Chris, >> >> Instead of responding to each of your point bit-by-bit, I’ll try a different >> tactic to explain my reasoning — which may be

Re: [swift-evolution] 100% bikeshed topic: DictionaryLiteral

ling a more stable set and a > less stable set of APIs seems to outweigh the start-up time consideration. > Yes, the implication is that most Swift apps will have to incur an increased > runtime cost. > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 18:43 Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution > <swift-evoluti

[swift-evolution] [Review][returned for revision] SE 0192 - Non-Exhaustive Enums

The review of "SE 0192 - Non-Exhaustive Enums” had extensive discussion and has been returned for revision. The proposal author, Jordan Rose, is working on a revised proposal that includes: - Alterations to the naming of the attributes. - New affordances for how switch statements work with

Re: [swift-evolution] 100% bikeshed topic: DictionaryLiteral

Hi Chris, Instead of responding to each of your point bit-by-bit, I’ll try a different tactic to explain my reasoning — which may be wrong — by explaining how I see things top down with the tradeoffs they incur. I’m going to say a bunch of things I know *you* know, but others are on this

Re: [swift-evolution] 100% bikeshed topic: DictionaryLiteral

> On Jan 9, 2018, at 10:29 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Ok, I understand that (among all the other things going on that are clearly > more important) revamping this is probably not the highest priority thing to > do. That said, it would be

Re: [swift-evolution] 100% bikeshed topic: DictionaryLiteral

> On Jan 9, 2018, at 11:48 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> IMO that isn’t a question we should be asking any more except in cases where >> an existing implementation is causing active harm. Which, confusing name >> aside, this type isn’t (aside

Re: [swift-evolution] Incremental ABI stability

Hi Nevin, I think it is important to separate the issues of concern here, as I think too much is get conflated into one topic. ABI stability doesn’t mean that the language or Standard Library can’t change in the future. It *does* mean we can’t just remove APIs wholesale that clients may

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

The review of "SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization" begins now and runs through January 5, 2018. The proposal is available here: > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md Reviews are an important part of the

[swift-evolution] [Review] SE 0192 - Non-Exhaustive Enums

The review of "SE 0192 - Non-Exhaustive Enums" begins now and runs through January 3, 2018. The proposal is available here: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0192-non-exhaustive-enums.md Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All review

[swift-evolution] [Accepted] SE-0189 - Restrict Cross-module Struct Initializers

Hello Swift Community, The review of of “SE-189: Restrict Cross-module Struct Initializers” ran from November 14 to 21, 2017. This proposal has been accepted. During the review, most of the feedback voiced support that this was a necessary change for the library evolution (API resilience)

[swift-evolution] [Accepted] SE-0190 - Target environment platform condition

Hello Swift Community, The review of of “SE-190: Target environment platform condition” ran from November 16 to 24, 2017. This proposal has been accepted. During the review, support for the enhancement was unanimous. There were some questions during the review about the capabilities of this

[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0190: Target environment platform condition

The review of "SE-0190 - Target environment platform condition" begins now and runs through November 24, 2017. The proposal is available here: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0190-target-environment-platform-condition.md Reviews are an important part of the Swift

[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0189: Restrict Cross-module Struct Initializers

The review of "SE-0189: Restrict Cross-module Struct Initializers" begins now and runs through November 21, 2017. The proposal is available here: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0189-restrict-cross-module-struct-initializers.md Reviews are an important part of the

Re: [swift-evolution] update on forum

I was thinking all the mailing lists. > On Nov 9, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Alejandro Martinez <alexi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification on that Ted :) > Are all the mailing list gonna move there or only swift-evo? > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Ted Krem

Re: [swift-evolution] Large Proposal: Non-Standard Libraries

> On Nov 8, 2017, at 11:49 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> >> On Nov 7, 2017, at 5:54 PM, Dave DeLong via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> Hi Swift-Evolution, >> >> The Standard Library's goal is to be small and

Re: [swift-evolution] Large Proposal: Non-Standard Libraries

rity > right!?) > > Thank you. :) > > > Am 9. November 2017 um 07:12:10, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution > (swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb: > >> >> >>> On Nov 8, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Kelvin Ma <kelvin1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>

[swift-evolution] update on forum

The decision to move to a forum was announced a while ago, and it hasn’t appeared yet. I think we will be making the move soon and I wanted to provide some reasons why it was delayed and what comes next. The reasons it was delayed are twofold: - When we (the community) decided to move to a

Re: [swift-evolution] Large Proposal: Non-Standard Libraries

> On Nov 8, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Kelvin Ma <kelvin1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > > >> On Nov 8, 201

Re: [swift-evolution] Large Proposal: Non-Standard Libraries

community and big community efforts coordinated. If you look > at Rust is a great example, their forums attract the whole community (sadly > not something the mailing list does) and big and important projects have come > up from the community that have made a huge impact. With that in plac

Re: [swift-evolution] Large Proposal: Non-Standard Libraries

> On Nov 8, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 8, 2017, at 4:30 AM, Wallacy via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: &

Re: [swift-evolution] Large Proposal: Non-Standard Libraries

> On Nov 8, 2017, at 4:30 AM, Wallacy via swift-evolution > wrote: > > I do not agree with Ted that only a few projects should be ranked, everyone, > as it is in npm should be available. Only be graded according to > recommendations. > I’m a bit confused. I’m

Re: [swift-evolution] Large Proposal: Non-Standard Libraries

On Nov 8, 2017, at 4:54 AM, Karl Wagner <razie...@gmail.com <mailto:razie...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >&g

Re: [swift-evolution] Large Proposal: Non-Standard Libraries

> On Nov 7, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Dave DeLong <sw...@davedelong.com> wrote: > > > >>> On Nov 7, 2017, at 3:12 PM, David Sweeris <daveswee...@mac.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Nov 7, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolut

Re: [swift-evolution] Large Proposal: Non-Standard Libraries

Hi Dave, Thanks for bringing up this topic. This has been kicked around a little, and we’re still exploring different models on how to extend Swift. The server APIs work group is one operational model for the community to build out a new set of core libraries. That work group was formed out

Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Member lookup on String should not find members of NSString

A complementary tactic would be that migration tool support to Swift 5 would insert the needed casts to NSString. That way even if the magic lookup is gone in Swift 5 the code could be automatically migrated and preserve the same semantics. If this came to a formal proposal I’d really like to

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Explicit Synthetic Behaviour

> On Oct 1, 2017, at 4:00 AM, Haravikk via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> >> On 14 Sep 2017, at 20:10, Ben Rimmington wrote: >> >> >>> On 14 Sep 2017, at 15:31, Haravikk wrote: >>> On 14 Sep 2017, at 02:12, Xiaodi Wu wrote:

[swift-evolution] [Accepted] SE-0186 - Remove ownership keyword support in protocols

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0186-remove-ownership-keyword-support-in-protocols.md The review of SE-0186 “Remove ownership

[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0176: Remove ownership keyword support in protocols

The review of “SE-0186: Remove ownership keyword support in protocols” begins now and runs through September 27. The proposal is available here: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0186-remove-ownership-keyword-support-in-protocols.md Reviews are an important

[swift-evolution] Swift 4.0 released!

I am pleased to announce that Swift 4.0 has been officially released: https://swift.org/blog/swift-4-0-released/ Swift 4 is available in Xcode 9 (which went live on the Mac App Store earlier today) and we will be posting an official toolchain shortly as well (likely early tomorrow morning).

Re: [swift-evolution] Beyond Typewriter-Styled Code in Swift, Adoption of Symbols

> On Aug 31, 2017, at 1:13 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> On Aug 31, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Taylor Swift via swift-evolution >> > wrote: >> Where is the source for this number? XCode is not

[swift-evolution] kicking off concurrency discussions

Hi everyone, One of the goals for Swift 5 is to start laying the *groundwork* for a concurrency model. >From https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution: > Laying groundwork for a new concurrency model. We will lay groundwork for a > new concurrency model, especially as needed for ABI

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 5: start your engines

gt; Jon > > >> On Aug 8, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Aug 8, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Paul Cantrell <cantr...@pobox.com >>&g

[swift-evolution] Swift 5: start your engines

Hi everyone, The proposal phase for Swift 4 is now officially over, and the release is now in endgame engineering convergence for an expected release later this year. Swift 4 has turned out to be one of the highest quality, well-rounded releases of Swift, and I am grateful to everyone in the

Re: [swift-evolution] RFC: structuring forums for best use for swift-evolution

> On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:30 PM, Rick Mann wrote: > > My inclination is to start with two broad-level categories: Evolution and > User (this presumes both the evolution and user lists are moving to > Discourse). Just to help frame the rest of the discussion on this

[swift-evolution] RFC: structuring forums for best use for swift-evolution

A while back a decision was reached to move from using mailing lists for swift-evolution to using a forum, specifically Discourse. At the time that decision was made, efforts had been already well committed for supporting the development of Swift 4 — including efforts supporting important

[swift-evolution] [Revised and review extended] SE-0180 - String Index Overhaul

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0180-string-index-overhaul.md The review of “SE-0180 - String Index Overhaul” ran from June 4…8, 2017. Feedback on the

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift phases and mis-timed proposals

> On Jun 12, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Paul Cantrell <cantr...@pobox.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 12, 2017, at 1:29 AM, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 11, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift phases and mis-timed proposals

> On Jun 11, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > wrote: > > I am sitting on a number of ideas that I think have merit (in a non-random > use-case non-C# way) and I have no idea when the right time will be to bring > them up. Several were marked as

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift phases and mis-timed proposals

Everyone: this is a great thread, and I appreciate the candid thoughts here. This is something Ben Cohen and I started chatting about offline and we’ll definitely bring it up for discussion with the rest of the Core Team. I realize there is a tension here, and a sense of frustration, because

[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0180: String Index Overhaul

Hello Swift community, The review of SE-0180 "String Index Overhaul" begins now and runs through June 8, 2017. The proposal is available here: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0180-string-index-overhaul.md

[swift-evolution] [Accepted] SE-0178: Add unicodeScalars property to Character

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0178-character-unicode-view.md The review of “SE-0178: Add unicodeScalars property to Character' ran from May 12…17,

[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0178: Add unicodeScalars property to Character

Hello Swift community, The review of SE-0178: Add unicodeScalars property to Character begins now and runs through May 17, 2017. The proposal is available here: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0178-character-unicode-view.md

[swift-evolution] [Accepted] SE-0173: Add MutableCollection.swapAt(_:_:)

Proposal Link: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0173-swap-indices.md The review of “SE-0173: Add MutableCollection.swapAt(_:_:)” (originally named "Add

[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0173: Add `MutableCollection.swap(_:with:)

Hello Swift community, The review of SE-0173 "Add MutableCollection.swap(_:with:)" begins now and runs through April 28, 2017. The proposal is available here: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0173-swap-indices.md

Re: [swift-evolution] Learning from SE-0025, a breeding group for Swift proposals

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 12:00 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution > > wrote: > > Here's my rough idea: > The Swift compiler gains a new off-by-default `next` version triggerable with > the `-swift-version next` flag. > All controversial

[swift-evolution] ABI dashboard now up

Hi everyone, We now have a dashboard up on Swift.org to track remaining tasks for ABI stability: https://swift.org/abi-stability/ The contents of the dashboard (which we may refine over time*) are largely drawn from JIRA and the ABI manifesto:

[swift-evolution] Swift 4 — converging "phase 2" discussions

Hi everyone, In mid-February we kicked of "stage 2" for the discussion of evolution proposals for Swift 4: https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170213/032116.html The timetable set forth was to have discussions for "stage 2" go through April 1. The intent of

[swift-evolution] Setting expectations on when we move to Discourse

Hi everyone, Moving to Discourse (from the mailing lists) is something that is being scoped out, but I wanted to lay some expectations that the move will not be immediate. The reason is that the people who would do the work on making the transition were already busy with already planned

Re: [swift-evolution] Swift 4, stage 2 starts now

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clatt...@nondot.org> wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> Deferring ABI Stability from Swift 4 &g

[swift-evolution] Swift 4, stage 2 starts now

Back in July, we laid out a plan for Swift 4 which divided the release into two stages. Since then, we’ve been in Swift 4 stage 1, which is characterized by the following text in the swift-evolutionrepository's README.md

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] Plan to move swift-evolution and swift-users mailing lists to Discourse

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > >> On Feb 9, 2017, at 6:04 PM, Ted Kremenek > > wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Ted Kremenek via swift-users >>>

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] Plan to move swift-evolution and swift-users mailing lists to Discourse

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Ted Kremenek via swift-users > wrote: > >> I’ve been mostly silent in this conversation largely because I didn’t >> realize it was leading up to a formal decision. I wish it would have >> followed the proposal process so it was clear to

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] Plan to move swift-evolution and swift-users mailing lists to Discourse

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Jens Alfke via swift-users >> > wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:41 AM, Jan Neumüller via

Re: [swift-evolution] Plan to move swift-evolution and swift-users mailing lists to Discourse

t;swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> >> >>  >> >> This is an awesome decision and a huge enhancement for the Swift >> >> community. Thanks (Core Team) for taking the time to entertain the >> >> discussion and move forward with

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-users] Plan to move swift-evolution and swift-users mailing lists to Discourse

Hi Jan, There was a lot of discussion — albeit not on swift-users — and Discourse was the one put forward that those that were pro-forum were most advocating. I actually didn't hear alternative forum software get strongly advocated. Specific things about Discourse (which may be offered by

[swift-evolution] Plan to move swift-evolution and swift-users mailing lists to Discourse

Hi everyone, There was a long thread on swift-evolution about whether we should use modern forum software — like Discourse — as an alternative to the mailing lists we have now. After a long discussion, the Core Team has decided to move swift-evolution and swift-users to Discourse. There are

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

There has been a tremendous amount of participation on this thread, with some extremely thoughtful analysis of how the mailing list serves the community and the tradeoffs of moving to a forum, like Discourse. I've been thinking about the points made on this thread as well as looking at the

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 9:56 PM, Erica Sadun wrote: > > >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Ted kremenek wrote: >> >> >> >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Karl Wagner wrote: >> >>> On 3 Feb 2017, at 02:55, Ted kremenek

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

should happen on those lists as well (e.g., swift-dev). >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 20:59 Jacob Bandes-Storch <jtban...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 2

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Ted kremenek via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> >>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Karl Wagner via swi

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Karl Wagner wrote: > > >> On 3 Feb 2017, at 02:55, Ted kremenek wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution >>> wrote: >>> >>> Personally I think that's

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution > wrote: > > It's at least worth a beta test. There are real concerns to work out here — just moving to the forum blindly would be bad if it is highly disruptive to the community having important

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Personally I think that's an absurd reason not to move to a forum. What is > your complaint? That it's _too_ inclusive? That others only have trivial > things to say? Frankly, every way I

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

> On Jan 27, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On 27 Jan 2017, at 02:10, Derrick Ho via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> I'm surprised there is so little support for JIRA. Anyone think it's a bad >> tool

Re: [swift-evolution] A case for postponing ABI stability

> On Jan 26, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Locking down ABI when all foreseeable desirable changes are additive is one > thing. But doing so before we get there feels premature. I fully agree that locking down the ABI

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

/replacing-mailing-lists-email-in/13099 > - "Mailing list mode": > https://discourse.mcneel.com/t/mailing-list-mode-for-discourse/5763 & > https://meta.discourse.org/t/what-is-mailing-list-mode/46008 > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Ted kremenek via swift-e

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 9:45 PM, Jacob Bandes-Storch <jtban...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> ... >> >> So in short, using mailing lists specifical

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

I had this same question in my mind — especially if one can reply to an email and it posts back to the forum. The mailing list model works well for those who want to get the entire feed of traffic, and easily monitor which threads they want to follow/read using the standard affordances in

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] mailing list alternative

I have no problem with the project moving to forums instead of the Mailman mailing lists we have now — if it is the right set of tradeoffs. My preference is to approach the topic objectively, working from goals and seeing how the mailing lists are aligning with those goals and how an

Re: [swift-evolution] A case for postponing ABI stability

Hi David, My apologies for being late to the thread — I've been away for the last week. ABI stability remains a keystone goal for Swift, but the concerns you have here about not rushing important things are real. There's been a lot of scoping work into what ABI stability means, soup-to-nuts

[swift-evolution] announcing Server APIs work group

Hi everyone, I’d like to announce the introduction of a new Server APIs work group: https://swift.org/blog/server-api-workgroup/ From the blog post: "Since Swift became available on Linux there has been a huge amount of interest in using Swift on the server, resulting in the emergence of a

[swift-evolution] Swift 3.0 released!

Hi everyone, Swift 3.0 has been officially released: https://swift.org/blog/swift-3-0-released/ This moment marks an incredible achievement for the Swift open source community. The release is the culmination of an incredible amount of discussion and implementation work to bring it all

Re: [swift-evolution] Endgame for Swift 3

any way to tell which of the changes in the gist have had proposals > associated with them? > > -- Will > >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:46 PM Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >&g

[swift-evolution] Endgame for Swift 3

Hi everyone, Swift 3 has shaped up to be a remarkable release — a product of the inspiration, ideas, and hard labor many people from across the Swift open source community. It is now time, however, to talk about the endgame for the release. Here are the key points: The last day to take

[swift-evolution] Swift 2.2 released!

Hi everyone, I am very pleased to announce the release of Swift 2.2! This is the first release of Swift since Swift became an open source project. Swift 2.2 began it’s convergence in mid-January when it branched from master, and since then is had taken curated changes (bug fixes and some