Joe, > Given the deep dependence in our standard library on LLVM primitives and > semantics, as well as the rather messy interactions between our compiler, > stdlib, and runtime in general, I'm not sure that's a practical goal.
Probably not no. I just figured, the more syntax — even internal/hidden/unsupported ones - we can support, the easier it will be to move stuff over or keep it in sync. Reviewing the official standard lib and bringing our up to speed with it (on the outside) is my next big goal, and even just being able to copy a class skeleton over can help ;)_ > Maybe if there were a better-factored 'core' that defined the basic > interfaces in terms of the substrate, giving you Int/String/etc. in terms of > LLVM/CLR/JavaScript/WebAssembly/whatever primitives, that was isolated from > the higher-level parts of the stdlib, but that's a sizable effort in itself. > I know you all already define your own versions of stdlib interfaces in terms > of common .NET/JVM abstractions, and change semantics in many places as a > result. Yeah. —marc _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
