Great to hear IUOs losing ground :-)

Might adding additional compiler warnings as described in SR-104 accompany the 
implementation of this proposal well?
https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-104

Fabian


On 31.03.2016, at 18:43, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Proposal Link: 
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0054-abolish-iuo.md

The review of SE-0054 "Abolish ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional type" ran from Mar 
25…30, 2016. The proposal has been *accepted, pending implementation 
experience*:

There is generally positive feedback on the proposal, as it keeps the good 
behaviors of the existing T! type syntax (including support for importing 
un-nullability-audited APIs, support for 2-phase initialization patterns, etc) 
while dramatically reducing the confusion and surprise that they introduce as 
they trickle through type inference.  The core team sees significant value in 
having a simple and predictable model that can be explained concisely.

That said, this is the sort of proposal that can have a profound impact on the 
actual experience using unaudited APIs.  The core team believes that the 
experience will be good, but we would like to get some experience moving a 
couple of existing projects (both low-level code that interacts with C, and an 
“App” project working with high level frameworks) to see what the impact is in 
practice.  If something unexpected comes up, we will revisit this, and 
potentially reject it later.  Chris Willmore is working on an implementation of 
this now, so we should know in the next week or two.

Thank you to Chris Willmore for driving this forward!

-Chris Lattner
Review Manager
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to