How would we evaluate the proposal to introduce the "sealed" specifier for classes (open within module, final outside of module) and default to that, in terms of source-code compatibility? From my point of view it might be easier to do before Swift 3, but if delayed until Swift 4 it wouldn't be the most time-consuming breakage for developers. On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:09 AM Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:59 AM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > - Rationalizing base conversion protocol names. I personally don't > have the heart to try to re-address the "LiteralConvertible" protocol > naming thing again but this would be the last chance to do anything about > getting this issue addressed. > > Given the vast amount of bike shedding that has already happened around > this topic, I don’t think there is a solution that everyone will be happy > with. It is also unclear (to me at least) what solution might be > acceptable to the core team. > > > To be clear, I don't care about the name. If you want to rename > IntegerLiteralConvertible to IntegerLiteral or whatever, I won't drag the > conversation into the muck again. :) It's the design of the requirements > that I'm pretty opposed to revisiting. > > > This is orthogonal to the discussion that happened in your thread, > definitely no discussion of any changes to the requirements. :) > > We are discussing this proposal: > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0041-conversion-protocol-conventions.md > and > specifically the use of the `Convertible` suffix for both the > `*LiteralConvertible` protocols and the `Custom(Debug)StringConvertible` > protocols where the conversion runs in opposite directions. > > The core team decision was: > > "The feedback on the proposal was generally positive about the idea of > renaming these protocols, but the specific names in the proposal are not > well received, and there is no apparent confluence in the community on > better names. The core team prefers discussion to continue -- if/when > there is a strong proposal for a better naming approach, we can reconsider > renaming these." > > > John. > > > At the same time, it continues to bother me that `Convertible` is used by > standard library protocols with two completely different meanings. This is > a problem that deserves to be solved and as it involves a breaking change > Swift 3 is the right timeframe in which to do so. > > If the core team is able to indicate an approach they favor I would be > willing to revise and resubmit the proposal. But I don’t want to spend any > further time speculating about what solution might be considered acceptable. > > Matthew > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Javier Soto
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
