> On May 11, 2017, at 2:39 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > What is your evaluation of the proposal? These changes all look like improvements to me. (But I would say that, since I recommended a couple of them in the original review.)
I notice that `Unicode.ParseResult`'s cases have lost their `resumptionPoint`s. Is the intent that the fully-baked versions of the higher-level APIs will pass these out in some other way? If so, is there a possibility that `Unicode.ParseResult` will not be adequate for those types, and it should be given a more specific name like `Unicode.ScalarParseResult`? (Off-topic, but: What's holding us back from allowing protocols to be nested inside other types? I don't think this is the first design to fake that with typealiases.) > Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to > Swift? Yup. > Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? Yes. The change to `StringProtocol` feels particularly nice. > If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do > you feel that this proposal compares to those? Compared to the original version, there's nothing really new that impacts this question. > How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or > an in-depth study? Quick reading of the diffs. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
