> On Sep 5, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Taylor Swift wrote:
>
> we agreed to deprecate the strided at:? Note that
> UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer would still need a byteOffset: argument. I’m
> also still not comfortable with duplicating functionality for the sake of
> having two
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 5:44 AM, Rod Brown via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6 Sep 2017, at 12:05 pm, Jarod Long via swift-evolution
>> > wrote:
>>
>> From the perspective of primarily an app
> On Sep 1, 2017, at 10:27 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hello Swift community,
>
> The review of SE-0184 "Unsafe[Mutable][Raw][Buffer]Pointer: add missing
> methods, adjust existing labels for clarity, and remove deallocation size"
> begins
> On Sep 2, 2017, at 00:30, Fabian Ehrentraud
> wrote:
>
>
> Am 03.08.2017 um 02:09 schrieb Jordan Rose via swift-evolution
> >:
>
>> David Hart recently asked on Twitter
>>
Some of you will have seen my impassioned pleas on the synthesised
Equatable/Hashable thread against implementing implicit synthesised behaviour
on protocols that must, by necessity, make assumptions about a concrete type
that could be incorrect.
For those that haven't, the concept of
It's in the "Alternatives Considered" section. :-) That was my desired design
when we started, but feedback convinced me that the break from Swift 4 mode
would be too drastic. The same valid code would have a different meaning
whether you were writing Swift 4 or Swift 5.
Jordan
> On Sep 5,
I’m fine with most of this
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Andrew Trick wrote:
>
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Taylor Swift wrote:
>
> we agreed to deprecate the strided at:? Note that
> UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer would still need a byteOffset:
OK, I've been watching this thing for a couple weeks.
I've done a lot of GCD network code. Invariably my completion method starts
with
dispatch_async(queue_want_to_handle_this_on,)
Replying on the same queue would be nice I guess, only often all I need to do
is update the UI in the
Hi Jordan,
I’m not sure how much bearing on this my comment will have.
Have you considered having only “exhaustive” as a keyword, and make the default
non-exhaustive? It seems that “exhaustive" would be the rarer case, as it
promises a lot more about compatibility (much like there is no such
Hi Jordan,
Upon further reflection, I’m going to withdraw my concerns about the defaulting
and I think it’s the right solution after all. This is due to several thoughts
I had rolling it around my head:
1. In a private project, you would expect all cases to be exhaustive, as this
is
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Andrew Trick wrote:
>
>>> In the new raw initializeMemory methods, Xiaodi and I agreed to make
>>> it more clear that the offset is in terms of `self` rather than
>>> `from`, and to further reduce ambiguity by forcing manual stride
>>>
Ah yes, my eye skipped that alternative for some reason! Sorry.
I’d be concerned that avoiding a default is a fix for a compatibility problem,
not a language design decision. If we look back in 5 years and say “why do we
need to keep writing nonexhaustive everywhere?”, we’ll have to say “there
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:29 PM, Elliott Harris via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Pierre Habouzit via swift-evolution
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Chris
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:28 PM, Taylor Swift wrote:
>
>>
>> UMRP (raw pointer):
>> --- func initializeMemory(as:at:(=0)count:(1)to:)
>> +++ func initializeMemory(as:repeating:count:) // remove default count
>>
>> still extremely suspicious of this but i’m willing to
>From the perspective of primarily an app developer rather than library author,
>I'm not a big fan of this change. I find myself in the "unhappy with the loss
>of compiler warnings" camp -- if I'm switching over every case of an enum,
>then I almost certainly want to be notified that a new case
I've taken everyone's feedback into consideration and written this up as a
proposal:
https://github.com/jrose-apple/swift-evolution/blob/non-exhaustive-enums/proposals/-non-exhaustive-enums.md
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Pierre Habouzit via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
>> > wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Pierre
I take issue with the fact that this problem is no different from accidentally
gaining the default inheritance of *any* member required by a protocol and
implemented in an extension of that protocol. The fact that in this case
conformance is synthesized by the compiler instead of written in
This becomes false in exactly the situation that you described where there are
two projections with similar structure, no? Labels would remove ambiguity here.
TJ
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 19:35, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
> If the bound name clearly communicates the purpose
Thanks Pierre,
When I answered, I was using my smartphone, so I copied the first code
snippet from stackoverflow I found and remove some words. And in that case
I'm happy to be a flawed example, and yet, its was most voted on
stackoverflow. (the full exemple also does other mistakes).
As
"Actors are serial and exclusive, so this concurrent queue thing is not
relevant."
Always? That is something i can't understand. The proposal actually cites
the "Intra-actor concurrency"
"Also, int he QoS world, using reader writer locks or private concurrent
queues this way is not terribly
I think we’ve agreed to a few minor updates to this proposal. Since there
hasn’t been any other feedback on the thread it may be worth posting an amended
proposal so we all know what we’ve agreed on.
-Andy
> On Sep 3, 2017, at 8:23 PM, Andrew Trick via swift-evolution
>
Fair enough! Tranks!
Em ter, 5 de set de 2017 às 13:48, Pierre Habouzit
escreveu:
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Wallacy via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> "Actors are serial and exclusive, so this concurrent queue thing is not
> relevant."
>
>
we agreed to deprecate the strided at:? Note that
UnsafeMutableRawBufferPointer would still need a byteOffset: argument. I’m
also still not comfortable with duplicating functionality for the sake of
having two names
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Andrew Trick wrote:
> I
Hi Pitiphong,
Thanks for pitching this! My main question here is about the use case.
Since encoding/decoding strategies apply to all values in a payload
(whether or not those belong to types that you own), they inherently
come with some risk.
What is the use case in mind for needing to encode
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Wallacy via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> "Actors are serial and exclusive, so this concurrent queue thing is not
> relevant."
>
> Always? That is something i can't understand. The proposal actually cites the
> "Intra-actor concurrency"
Hi Itai,
I think my first pitch email was not clear enough and want to sorry for that. I
have been working on a calendar app for awhile and understand the concept of
calendar or date and time programming in some level. I didn’t pitch the idea of
encoding and decoding `Date` value with this
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 3:07 AM, gs. via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>
> This becomes false in exactly the situation that you described where there
> are two projections with similar structure, no? Labels would remove ambiguity
> here.
> TJ
That depends on what
28 matches
Mail list logo