> On Jun 22, 2016, at 11:48 AM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Javier Soto <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 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. 
> 
> I believe we consider this plan of record, actually, other than the spelling 
> of the modifier.  It's something we probably ought to commit to in Swift 3, 
> though.

By “commit to in Swift 3” do you mean that it is likely the core team would 
introduce a proposal for this in Swift 3?

> 
> John.
> 
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:09 AM Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution 
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:59 AM, John McCall <[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution 
>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[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
>>  
>> <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] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution 
>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution 
>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>> -- 
>> Javier Soto
> 

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

Reply via email to