> On Apr 27, 2016, at 6:05 AM, Ryan Lovelett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> SE-0066 is a very narrow proposal - it only affects syntax, not semantics. >> The type system semantics that you seem interested in are unlikely to happen >> regardless of the syntax changes SE-0066 imply, and SE-0066 doesn’t have >> anything to do with that. > > It is most disappointing to read these sorts of statements. > > One of the things that I have noticed over the last year or so of working > with Swift is a trend in the community of libriaries being written for Swift > towards some of these "system semantics" (i.e., functional paradigms) like > applicatives and such.
I hope I’m coming across clearly here. What I’m trying to say is that there are a lot of reasons that the Swift type system works the way it does (e.g. inout has very specific behavior that doesn’t work when partially applied, we have specific promotion rules that apply only in argument lists etc). These reasons and features are certainly debatable, but have nothing to do with SE-0066, therefore they seem out of scope for a discussion of SE-0066 to go into. -Chris _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
