> Le 26 avr. 2016 à 08:07, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> a écrit : > > 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.
Your sentences are truly relieving, because we not often read such a balanced view here. We all know St Exupery's famous sentence about perfect designs that have nothing else to take away. This does not mean stripping UX away, and requires a clear consciousness of the desired sugar. This is very difficult, I totally agree. Gwendal _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
