Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Expanding Build Configuration Tests for Simulator and Device targets

The reference for build configuration statements[1] has a list of platforms and operating systems. If that list is out of date, it's a documentation bug — so thanks for pointing that out! TSPL: Build configuration statements is missing Windows, FreeBSD, powerpc64, and powerpc64le If you

[swift-evolution] Notes from Swift core team 2016-04-05 design discussion

To help keep proposals moving forward, the Swift core team has set aside some time specifically for design discussions of upcoming proposals. Below are some rough notes from the yesterday's discussion. These are informal comments, intended to guide the proposals in directions that draw

[swift-evolution] Notes from Swift core team 2016-03-15 design discussion

To help keep proposals moving forward, the Swift core team has set aside some time specifically for design discussions of upcoming proposals. Below are some rough notes from the yesterday's discussion. These are informal comments, intended to guide the proposals in directions that draw

[swift-evolution] Notes from Swift core team 2016-03-23 design discussion

To help keep proposals moving forward, the Swift core team has set aside some time specifically for design discussions of upcoming proposals. Below are some rough notes from the yesterday's discussion. (This week, I want to point out that my notes for PR 219, the first discussion topic, are

Re: [swift-evolution] Notes from Swift core team 2016-03-23 design discussion

> On Mar 24, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Russ Bishop <xen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 24, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Alex Martini via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote >> Allow Swift types to provide cus

[swift-evolution] Notes from Swift core team 2016-04-20 design discussion

To help keep proposals moving forward, the Swift core team has set aside some time specifically for design discussions of upcoming proposals. Below are some rough notes from the yesterday's discussion. These are informal comments, intended to guide the proposals in directions that draw

Re: [swift-evolution] Carriage Return in Collection Array Literal Initializer

A comma is already allowed after the last element in an array or dictionary literal: Welcome to Apple Swift version 2.2 (swiftlang-703.0.18.1 clang-703.0.29). Type :help for assistance. 1> let x = [1, 2, 3,] x: [Int] = 3 values { [0] = 1 [1] = 2 [2] = 3 } 2> let y = [1: "one", 2:

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0144: Allow Single Dollar Sign as a Valid Identifier

> On Oct 14, 2016, at 1:53 PM, Hooman Mehr via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> On Oct 14, 2016, at 1:49 PM, Daniel Duan via swift-evolution >> > wrote: >> >> Agree with Robert here. I'd rather be able to use

Re: [swift-evolution] [Proposal] Refining Identifier and Operator Symbology

> Dots in operators > > The current requirements for dots in operator names are: > > If an operator doesn’t begin with a dot, it can’t contain a dot elsewhere. > This proposal changes the rule to: > > Dots may only appear in operators in runs of two or more. > Under the revised rule, ..< and

Re: [swift-evolution] Constant initialization and unreachable code.

> On Oct 19, 2016, at 4:50 AM, David Goodine via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Hey all, > > I don’t know if this is really an ‘evolution’ topic per se, and I’m not on > Swift Dev, but thought someone here could shed some light on this. > > Often when developing

Re: [swift-evolution] Constant initialization and unreachable code.

> On Oct 19, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Alex Martini via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 19, 2016, at 4:50 AM, David Goodine via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>&g

Re: [swift-evolution] Postfix operators that start with ? or !

> On Nov 1, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Toni Suter via swift-evolution > wrote: > > In Swift 3, I can declare a postfix operator that starts with a ? or a !, but > as far as I can tell, there's no way to actually use such an operator: > > I think it would probably be best to

Re: [swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0147: Move UnsafeMutablePointer.initialize(from:) to UnsafeMutableBufferPointer

> On Dec 7, 2016, at 10:07 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: > > Hello Swift community, > > The review of SE-0147 "Move UnsafeMutablePointer.initialize(from:) to > UnsafeMutableBufferPointer" begins now and runs through December 12, 2016. > The proposal is available here: > >

[swift-evolution] Notes from Swift core team 2016-01-04 design discussion

Happy New Year! To help keep proposals moving forward, the Swift core team has set aside some time specifically for design discussions of upcoming proposals. Below are some rough notes from the discussion this week. These are informal comments, intended to guide the proposals in directions

Re: [swift-evolution] Request for information about constrained protocol inheritance

Since you mentioned not finding documentation, here's the new section in "The Swift Programming Language": Associated Types with a Generic Where Clause