> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? +1. This proposal improves clarity by allowing operator implementations to be declared inside the relevant type (or an extension of it). It also improves implementation as outlined in the proposal. Both are significant steps forward.
> * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change > to Swift? Yes. I always thought it was unfortunate that operators have to be global functions. > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? Very much so. > * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, > how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? The closest is C++. > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick > reading, or an in-depth study? In depth study with the earlier proposal, discussion and review. Quick reading this time around. The new proposal is much better and resolves the things I did not like about the original version. > > More information about the Swift evolution process is available at > > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md > > Thank you, > > -Chris Lattner > Review Manager > > _______________________________________________ > 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
