+1 from me. I followed the discussion and read the proposal. It seems like a fairly straightforward solution to the problem.
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Karl via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > * What is your evaluation of the proposal? > > +1 > > Although if I was nitpicking I prefer the name “ofInstance” (as in the > stdlib private function) to “ofValue”. > > What is the standard nomenclature? Whereas I would distinguish between > “objects/instances” and “values”, I’ve started referring to all Swift > things as “objects” and “instances”, even if they are value types. > > > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a > > change to Swift? > > Yes > > > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of > > Swift? > > Yes > > > * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar > > feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? > > I think the metatype system needs revising for Swift >3.0, but given time > constraints this is the best solution > > > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a > > quick reading, or an in-depth study? > > Followed prior discussion, read proposal > > > > > More information about the Swift evolution process is available at > > > > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/process.md > > > > Thank you, > > > > Dave Abrahams > > Review Manager > > _______________________________________________ > > swift-evolution mailing list > > swift-evolution@swift.org > > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
