@Chris, I believe you should add your reply to the proposal itself.
On 26.04.2016 8:17, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution wrote:
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.
Swift 3 will necessarily be a majorly source breaking change, so we’re trying
to pack other source breaking changes into it. We almost certainly would not
make a change like this in Swift 4 (where we will be much more adverse to
source breaking changes), and would instead have to live with the inconsistency
forever. As such, this is a “now or never” sort of thing.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
