> On Jul 13, 2016, at 8:57 PM, Tony Allevato <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Chris! I'm happy that the proposal was well-received, and thanks to 
> Doug for the great improvements for revision 2.
> 
> Related, does the acceptance of this proposal imply the removal of the named 
> methods from FloatingPoint and Arithmetic in favor of static operators, or do 
> we need a separate proposal for that?

That should be either a separate proposal or a refinement to this one.  I 
suspect we’ll go with the later approach just because the changes are 
“obvious”, but I don’t speak for the whole core team with that opinion.

-Chris


> 
> I'll work on a PR to the proposal that covers the changes regarding classes, 
> and to list the protocols affected by this (FP and Arithmetic noted above, as 
> well as Equatable and others).
> 
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:46 PM Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Proposal Link: 
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0091-improving-operators-in-protocols.md
>  
> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0091-improving-operators-in-protocols.md>
> 
> The second review of "SE-0091: Improving operator requirements in protocols" 
> ran from July 7...12, 2016. The proposal has been *accepted with revision*:
> 
> The second iteration of this proposal has been very well received by both the 
> community and core team.  The core team requests one minor modification: in 
> an effort to reduce the scope of the proposal, it should specifically require 
> that operator declarations in classes be written as static (or equivalently, 
> as “final class”).  In the future, support for operators may be extended to 
> support dynamic dispatch, and the core team wants to keep the design space 
> open.  The core team also observed that the impact on the standard library is 
> not captured in this proposal, but that can be incorporated later (as an 
> amendment to this proposal) since it should have little user impact.
> 
> Thank you to Tony Allevato and Doug Gregor for driving this discussion 
> forward!  I filed SR-2073 to track implementation work on this.
> 
> -Chris Lattner
> Review Manager
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to