> On May 24, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Joe Pamer <jpa...@apple.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On May 24, 2016, at 9:35 AM, Jordan Rose via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org
>>> <mailto:swift-dev@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wouldn’t phrase it this way. “nil” could just as easily been above all of
>>> the integers.
>>>
>>> We added overloads for < and friends that took optionals so that you could
>>> sort an array by passing < and get something reasonable out without having
>>> to provide your own comparison function, but you’re not the first to find
>>> it counterintuitive. We could consider removing it (going through the Swift
>>> Evolution Process
>>> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md>).
>>
>> One of the ideas that Joe Pamer has been discussing is whether the implicit
>> promotion from T to T? should be disabled when in an operator context.
>> Doing so would fix problems like this, but making the code invalid.
>>
>> Joe, is this something that you think will come up for discussion in the
>> Swift 3 timeframe?
>
> Yes - I believe so. I’ve been collecting my notes on the topic, with the
> hopes of getting a pitch out to swift-evolution soon.
Awesome, thanks!
-Chris
_______________________________________________
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
