On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:46 PM, Saagar Jha <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have updated the proposal here > <https://gist.github.com/saagarjha/f33fecd4576f40133b6469da942ef453>. Since > this is a potentially a source breaking change, I’d like this to be > considered for Swift 3; unless anyone has any issues with it, I’m going to > push this to swift-evolution.
Some comments: - The syntax proposed would be *completely* unlike anything in Swift, and is semantically changing things unrelated to the type. - This proposal doesn’t work, and overly punishes IUOs. I recommend that we do not discuss this proposal, as it would not be a good use of community time. Beyond the unworkability of this specific proposal, in my personal opinion, there is nothing wrong with the T! syntax. Making it significantly more verbose would be a very *bad* thing for the intended use cases. -Chris > > Saagar Jha > > > >> On Jul 5, 2016, at 13:30, Saagar Jha <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Gave me a chuckle, but yeah, basically. >> >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 12:54 PM William Jon Shipley >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On Jun 30, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Saagar Jha via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> When I see an IUO property, I consider it a sort of “contract”–it’s >>> basically saying something like “I can’t set this to a valid value right >>> now, but by the time you use it I promise that it’s non nil” >> >> You might say that an IUO is sort of an IOU? >> >> -W >> -- >> -Saagar Jha >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
