Proposal link:
>
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0158-package-manager-manifest-api-redesign.md
>
> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0158-package-manager-manifest-api-redesign.md>
Thanks for this feedback. We'll revise it to "from:".
Since we're still making minor revisions to this proposal, I'm going to extend
the review period by another day to make sure we don't have any other important
feedback pending.
- Rick
> On Mar 14, 2017, at 12:28 AM, David Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yep, after does sound confusing. I prefer from.
>
>> On 14 Mar 2017, at 08:22, Ankit Aggarwal via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> – Dave Sweeris' point about this reading wrong in English as
>>> .upToNextMajor("x.y.z") (vs. of "x.y.z".upToNextMajor) makes sense to us
>>> too. As a result, we're going to clarify this by changing it to
>>> .upToNextMajor(after:"x.y.z") and .upToNextMinor(after:"x.y.z").
>>
>>
>> The "after" in .upToNextMajor(after: "x.y.z") sounds like we're going to
>> pick the version after `x.y.z`, for e.g. `x.y.(z+1)`, and go upto the next
>> major version. I think we should use `from` instead of `after`, which is
>> more clear IMO. It also feels like `after` and `from` (in shorthand) do
>> different things, and if we use `form`, it will also be reasonable to assume
>> that the `.package(url:from:)` is a shorthand form.
>>
>> - Ankit
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
