On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> I can understand that, I am just wary of "let's do a partially detrimental > change > The key here is that there is no detriment to this change. There's no functionality that's being removed, only misleading syntax. > no... we will... we will make it proper someday" kind of changes as they > seldom work out. Argument labels for stored closures and callbacks are > still lost for example :/... > That's a totally different issue. Someone needs to write the proposal and implementation for that. Also, while here we keep pushing things Core Team's way, Ted K. is asking > for devs' help on swift-dev as there is concern that the currently accepted > proposals may not make it with this year's new Swift version (second year > in a row). Should we discuss features in scope for Swift 4.1+ only now? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 8 May 2017, at 08:12, David Hart <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 8 May 2017, at 09:03, Goffredo Marocchi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Over my dead body --random list dweller ;) > > Seriously though, I think the labels should be made to matter not removed > if they do not matter now. I think this goes to a path where we should not > take protocols as they should be true contracts for the API in question > (default method in protocols make me think we have to write unit tests for > a protocol which sounds mad... oh well) although some may argue the > ownership info is implementation detail and on that point I may agree with > you ;). > > > Agreed. But we don’t have the time to bring meaning to them in time for > Swift 4. Its better to make the language consistent now (disallowing a > keyword which currently has no meaning) and allow ourselves to reintroduce > later with correct semantics. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 8 May 2017, at 07:57, David Hart via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Sounds great! It should be an easy one to get through, > > On 8 May 2017, at 08:35, Greg Spiers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:26 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 7 May 2017, at 20:12, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Today these keywords have no meaning inside a protocol, so clearly it >> should be an error to use it in that context. I agree with Jordan that the >> error should be on the protocol. >> >> It's entirely a different conversation whether the keyword should have >> meaning or not. If it should, it seems to me it should be limited to >> protocols that are limited to classes. But that's an additive feature we >> can discuss later. >> >> The source-breaking bug fix that is more pressing today is removing >> meaningless keywords that can be misleading to users, because they have no >> effect but look like they should. >> >> Exactly the trap I fell into when I found this issue. > > >> >> Yup, +1. Who wants to write a proposal? >> > > I'd like to give it a try. I can write up the proposal to remove the > keywords in protocols and will post a draft here for further discussion. > > >> >> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 11:00 Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It would be useful to have a longer discussion on this as... I think >>> that weak has a place there and should be enforced as a protocol is the >>> public facing interface/api for the types who decide to adopt it. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> > On 7 May 2017, at 15:41, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > browse >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
