> Le 26 avr. 2016 à 07:17, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Here are two things to improve the proposal and make it more clear: >> >> I'd like the Motivation section to be much more explicit. I get the argument >> of ambiguity, OK, but I don't see the problems it creates. I personally did >> not have any trouble yet, and this section does not enlighten me. Do we >> create problems out of thin air, here? > > Fair enough. This is one of many recent proposals which are about cleaning > up minor inconsistencies in the language, not because they cause excessive > practical usage problems, but because they are wrong for the long term shape > of the language.
I was expecting something like that. I personally have no problem with changes that the *language implementers* see as necessary. You know better, after all. I can imagine how the grammar inconsistencies we're talking about here belong to a general maintenance problem. I'll just hope that Swift won't become too inflexible, and that you'll figure out a way to protect the warm feeling that brought early Swift users in. And I'm targeting the "should we require" questions of the "Related questions" section of the proposal :-) Gwendal _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
