> On 6 Oct 2016, at 03:08, Greg Parker via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Oct 5, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Now, as for naming: I like using the leading "C" convention ("CLibc") >> because it leaves us room for introducing an overlaid version of the module >> in the future without breaking source compatibility. Because of this, I >> wouldn't want to name the module just `C`, because it wouldn't leave room >> for a Swifty version later. > > I don't think separating the raw C library translation from the pretty Swift > wrapper works, at least not for everybody. The problem is that the raw > translation is going to have functions that the pretty wrapper does not. > (Perhaps the pretty wrapper is new and incomplete. Perhaps an OS has added > functions and the pretty wrapper has not caught up yet.)
Surely you have just outlined the reason why the ability to import the raw C library is absolutely essential. > If you try to import both then you end up with the same problems of name > collisions today and source incompatibility in the future when the pretty > wrapper grows. To me this reads like you are claiming we can’t have the full capability of a C library now because one day in the future it *might* cause a problem. _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
