On Apr 25, 2016, at 10:48 PM, Gwendal Roué <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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 :-)

I understand exactly what you mean.  Perhaps your concern is a result of the 
character of many of these recent proposals: because we’re trying to get things 
settled for Swift 3, we’re hyper-focused on front-loading the “things we want 
to take away”, rather than spending time on sugar and other things that make 
the language feel more nice.  The rationale for this approach is sound IMO 
(sugar can be added at any time later) but I can understand how it would feel 
like we’re "taking away” without “giving anything back” in this respect.

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

Reply via email to