> On Apr 18, 2016, at 7:39 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 18, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>>
>> I would like to see Swift Evolution adopt a couple of styles of fast track
>> reviews. Chris Lattner
>> suggested I bring this up on-list for discussion to allow the community to
>> offer feedback
>> on my idea.
>>
>> STYLE ONE: Minor language enhancements AKA "Low hanging fruit"
>>
>> I would like the core team to be able to add minor language enhancements
>> without going
>> through a formal proposal process, with its normal review overhead. I have
>> now been
>> involved in several reviews that involved API changes that were otherwise
>> unremarkable
>> and primarily motivated by modernizing and style:
>>
>> * Replacing Equal Signs with Colons For Attribute Arguments
>> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0040-attributecolons.md>
>> * Modernizing Playground Literals
>> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0039-playgroundliterals.md>
>> * Disambiguating Line Control Statements from Debugging Identifiers
>> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0034-disambiguating-line.md>
>>
>> To this list, you could add:
>>
>> * Remove explicit use of let from Function Parameters
>> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0053-remove-let-from-function-parameters.md>
>>
>> Each of these proposals could have proceeded with a simple "any objections"
>> sanity check
>> discussion period rather than a more formal full review. As a another example
>> (now unnecessary <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/256>),
>> consider the `dynamicType` keyword, which would have required
>> a formal proposal to be modernized into Swift's lowercase keyword standard.
>>
>> The hallmarks of these changes are:
>>
>> * They have limited impact
>> * They increase language consistency
>> * They are uncontroversial, offering simple, straightforward, and correct
>> changes
>> that have already passed review in spirit, if not in letter
>> * A preponderance of reviews are "+1" rather than in-depth discussions of
>> why the proposal
>> should or should not be adopted.
>>
>> I would recommend retaining a change document requirement for these
>> proposals.
>> This would be similar to a brief but formal proposal, that lays out the
>> justification,
>> detail design, and any associated background info for the change. Doing so
>> would provide a historic record of the change and any notes from the team,
>> and be
>> in a form that would support the extraction of key details for use in
>> release notes.
>>
>> I do not know whether these would need to be grouped and numbered with the
>> normal
>> proposals or placed into their own numbering scheme.
>
> My main concerns are to have a proper paper trail documenting when and why we
> make a change. My preferred approach here would be to go through the normal
> process up to the pull request for the proposal... Then if it's obviously
> small and good, the core team could just go straight to accept, sending out
> an announcement.
The core team did discuss this, and we agreed that there are small changes
(particularly those that come from actually implementing the proposal) that
could be treated as “bug fixes” to the proposal. When we accept such a pull
request, we will send out an [Amendment] to swift-evolution [*].
We expect to use this sparingly. The removal of the vestigial “let” from
function parameter lists is one case where we could have done this, the others
are on the fence.
- Doug
[*] I still owe one of these for a recent pull request we accepted to amend
SE-0016.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
