No new suggestions have come in 2 days, and so I have created a pull request! Here it is: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/253
If new glitches are suddenly discovered, Core team will still have the ability to correct them. So far we have mostly come to consensus. - Anton 2016-04-10 13:18 GMT+03:00 Maximilian Hünenberger <[email protected]>: > > Am 10.04.2016 um 11:48 schrieb Антон Жилин <[email protected]>: > > > 2016-04-10 2:27 GMT+03:00 Maximilian Hünenberger <[email protected]>: > > > [...] > > > The only minor syntax issue I have is that it is not immediately clear >> which operators belong to a precedence group. The former syntax with the >> "members(+, -)" solved this issue. However this has (currently) an >> extensibility problem: >> > If you define a new operator and it should belong to a precedencegroup >> where you have no access to its source (like Additive) then the whole >> argument about having operators in one place. >> > > My thoughts went as follows. > We should be able to add operators to existing groups, for example, > defined in the Standard Library. > If so, then this this statement should belong to operator, not precedence > group. > But we have to declare the operator anyway, so adding `: Additive` or > something to the declaration does not cause huge code bloat. Especially > considering operators are not defined very often. > Now, we have two ways to do the same thing. External declaration is > necessary and not so bad. So, following a widely known principle, I remove > `members`. > > > [...] > > > My issue can be solved by the IDE: It could display all operators which > are contained in a precedencegroup with quick look or the new interface > view in Xcode. However this excludes other IDEs which don't have such > features. > > But as I said it is only a minor issue. > > Best regards > - Maximilian > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
