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

> 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

Reply via email to