On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:03 Gwendal Roué <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 7 juin 2017 à 15:52, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Let’s clarify: you just wrote that you have problems with SE-0029, > SE-0066, SE-0110, and “before,” did you not? > > > WTF? No I did not (citation below)! > > Le 7 juin 2017 à 15:02, Gwendal Roué <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Le 7 juin 2017 à 14:42, Vladimir.S <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Gwendal, again, you are proposing to revert not just SE-0110 and SE-0066 > but mainly SE-0029 "Remove implicit tuple splat behavior from function > applications" > ( > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0029-remove-implicit-tuple-splat.md > ) > > > Do you mean that the regressions Stephen and I have shown have been > introduced not only by SE-0110, but before SE-0066, and SE-0029? > > > Your attitude is obnoxious. Enough Swift evolution for me today. > Please refrain from personal attacks. Are we reading the same sentence? I see that you literally listed three proposals (and “before”) and blamed them for “regressions” that you want to reverse. If that’s not your meaning, what do you mean? I asked you in my first reply to you, is your view that the distinction itself between (Int, Int) -> Int and ((Int, Int)) -> Int is problematic? If so, this is a very different discussion from seeking solutions to mitigate particular ergonomic issues that arise from the change. However, you have not answered the question.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
