Hi David, thanks for your explanation, most things are understandable. However, I am challenged by all this to study this subject more in detail and come back with it later at a more convenient time.
After all those years, now I have time for this to go in-depth, wait and see. Met vriendelijke groeten TedvG > On 12 Oct 2016, at 23:38, David Hart <da...@hartbit.com> wrote: > > Hi Ted, > > My replies inline: > >> On 12 Oct 2016, at 22:37, Ted F.A. van Gaalen <tedvgios...@gmail.com >> <mailto:tedvgios...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi David, >> >> Thanks for your reply., OK, I think I understand. >> >> It then is a capacity problem, right? > > Mainly. We lived through a few months where there was very little focus, and > everybody brought up all kind of ideas. It was great, but it was also very > chaotic. Many proposals were accepted, but the implementation for them was a > rush and a few couldn’t make it in the final release of Swift 3. > > I think the decision of focusing releases is to improve the evolution process > by trying to make sure we set the right priorities and to make them > attainable. For example, if we do not focus on ABI stability, Swift 4 will > not be able to set the ABI in stone, which would disappoint many many people. > >> In effect, it means restricting people from bringing perhaps very valuable >> (not necessarily my contributions) >> and essential ideas forward, which could play a crucial role improving Swift. > > Not necessarily restrict. But politely ask them to keep a hold of those ideas > until a more appropriate phase of Swift’s development allows those kind of > proposals. > >> I think this is a very negative aspect. surely bouncing creative people away, >> dropping their efforts and interest here altogether. > > We try to be as kind and positive as possible as not to bounce create ideas > away. But I think it is also important that we explain the priorities of the > evolution process through time so Swift can move forward. > >> The question then remains, where / when / how can one bring topics >> that are taking a longer stretch and are not bound to a certain release of >> Swift, >> seemingly “outside” of this restriction under attention? > > It all depends on the focus at the time. For example, the swift evolution > README states that phase 2 of Swift 4 will allow new features to be discussed > and implemented: > > Stage 2 will commence once the implementation work on the Stage 1 features is > cresting, and can contain a few other large and small features. We expect > that stage 2 will commence some time in Spring 2017. > >> if swift evolution is (currently? ) not open for new ideas/topics: >> I thought that was the primary purpose of Swift evolution? > > The purpose of Swift evolution as I understand it is to bring ideas, > proposals and discuss them to push Swift forward in line with the project > priorities at the time. You can, for example, bring new features and topics > forward now, but they need to concern ABI stability. For example, we are > looking at the remaining Generics features which will allow the Standard > Library to take its final form. > > David. > >> Kind Regards >> Ted >> >> >>> On 12 Oct 2016, at 21:48, David Hart <da...@hartbit.com >>> <mailto:da...@hartbit.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ted, >>> >>> Please try to understand. As Xiaodi and others have said a few times, it >>> has nothing to do with the topic being important or interesting. The >>> current phase of Swift 4’s development does not allow any extensive >>> discussion or review on topics which do not impact ABI stability: >>> >>> Stage 1 focuses on the essentials required for source and ABI stability. >>> Features that don't fundamentally change the ABI of existing language >>> features or imply an ABI-breaking change to the standard library will not >>> be considered in this stage. >>> >>>> On 12 Oct 2016, at 19:14, Ted F.A. van Gaalen via swift-evolution >>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Apart from my perhaps fierce reaction, I am not aware of doing something >>>> wrong. >>>> and I still find this topic very important. >>> >>> David. >> >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
