On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 08:34 Gwendal Roué <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Le 7 juin 2017 à 15:28, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> a écrit : > > These *are* changes related to SE-0110, and Chris and others have already > proposed possibilities for sugar that could make this better. That’s > exactly the discussion that was originally started, to be distinguished > from the alternative in which you and others are proposing reversing 5 or 6 > other proposals. > > > That's wrong. > > "I and others" have always been after ergonomics regressions, not > "reversing 5 or 6 other proposals" (how dare you???) > Let’s clarify: you just wrote that you have problems with SE-0029, SE-0066, SE-0110, and “before,” did you not? In addition, Stephen has just said he disagrees with SE-0155 also, and I’ve outlined how arguments as tuples impacts SE-0046. That’s five or more proposals by my count–so I should apologize, it’s only four or more other proposals, not five or six.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
