Re: [swift-users] any wisdom about sharing "common" overloads/extensions in base libraries?

Jordon Rose from Apple said: "It's tracked by SR-3908 . (The description's a little different but it's the same underlying issue.)" -- Howard. On 21 June 2017 at 12:07, David Baraff wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2017, at 6:59 PM, Howard Lovatt > wrote: > > T

Re: [swift-users] Can I create a Cocoa app that is only a Swift script?

Why do you want to do this? What to you mean by “binary stability?” Why not use Xcode to build an application using the swift compiler? > On Jun 20, 2017, at 10:34 AM, tuuranton--- via swift-users > wrote: > > I want the entire code for my entire Mac app to look like this .swift script: > >

Re: [swift-users] any wisdom about sharing "common" overloads/extensions in base libraries?

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 6:59 PM, Howard Lovatt wrote: > > There is a *bug* that the Swift people know about, but you are **meant** to > be able to do this: Is there a plan to fix this? If it worked properly this would be quite wonderful. > > ModuleA > A.swift > public protocol P { > func m()

Re: [swift-users] any wisdom about sharing "common" overloads/extensions in base libraries?

There is a *bug* that the Swift people know about, but you are **meant** to be able to do this: ModuleA A.swift public protocol P { func m() -> String } extension Int: P { public func m() -> String { return "AP.m" } } ModuleB B.swift public protocol P { func m() -> String } extension I

Re: [swift-users] any wisdom about sharing "common" overloads/extensions in base libraries?

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Travis Griggs wrote: > >> >> On Jun 20, 2017, at 7:02 AM, David Baraff via swift-users >> mailto:swift-users@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> I posted this on Apple’s developer forums, and someone suggested trying this >> here. >> Basically, see https://forums.develope

Re: [swift-users] any wisdom about sharing "common" overloads/extensions in base libraries?

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 7:02 AM, David Baraff via swift-users > wrote: > > I posted this on Apple’s developer forums, and someone suggested trying this > here. > Basically, see https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/80349 > > > but in a nuts

[swift-users] Unimplemented types in Swift 4 KeyPaths

Hi all, In the Swift 4 Keypaths proposal [0161] there seem to be several types that are unimplemented (or not working as I expect them to), and I'm not sure whether these are simply unfinished in Beta 1, or just ideas that weren't accepted. For instance, according to the proposal AnyKeyPath

Re: [swift-users] any wisdom about sharing "common" overloads/extensions in base libraries?

> This is not a made up situation: many people even within one company trying > to share code somewhat informally are going to write the same code to make > using CGPoint/Size/Rect easier, and now we can’t share anything safely. Well, have a look at what C++ did: Nothing ;-) — and therefore, the

[swift-users] Can I create a Cocoa app that is only a Swift script?

I want the entire code for my entire Mac app to look like this .swift script: #!/path/to/swift import Cocoa // The rest of my entire Mac app. Because we don't yet have binary stability, I guess I'd have to put the swift binary (which runs the above .swift script) and a bunch of .dylibs into the

[swift-users] any wisdom about sharing "common" overloads/extensions in base libraries?

I posted this on Apple’s developer forums, and someone suggested trying this here. Basically, see https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/80349 but in a nutshell: consider that a widely used class/struct (such as CGPoint) is missing some “obvi

Re: [swift-users] Should I be using more catchless do blocks?

Sorry in advance if Google Inbox messes with my code formatting below (can't there be just one good email client? I miss Mailbox) Michael Savich via swift-users schrieb am Mo. 19. Juni 2017 um 20:54: > Yeah, it's all about balance to be sure. Though one benefit of do blocks > is in functions tha