On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 13:00 Taylor Swift via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Michael Ilseman via swift-evolution < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> So, this has been discussed before on the list many times in the past. >>> The core team has stated that their preferred process for this is to have >>> individuals write their own libraries, get real-world adoption, then (as >>> consensus emerges) propose their inclusion as a core library. >>> >>> I already opened a new mail to write my answer, but than I thought >>> "wait, scroll down, and look if Xiaodi did already post links" ;-) >>> [But where have those potential core libraries been mentioned?] >>> >>> Anyways, my perception hasn't change much: >>> I think it would be enough if someone from Apple would say "here's an >>> empty github-repo called [math/statistics/algebra/ >>> crypto/graphic/image/audio/music/video/smtp/http…]; feel free to fork >>> and create pull requests" and adding some democratic mechanism for >>> acceptance on top of it. >>> >>> >>> What would be your compatibility and stability expectations of such >>> APIs? If there are any expectations, then the APIs would need careful >>> design and thought. The Swift project faces a lot of design bandwidth >>> limitations, so prioritize is always tricky. >>> >>> >> The point of spinning off separate core library working groups would be >> so that library feature requests and proposals can stop clogging up >> swift-evolution. Then the swift-evolution core team could focus on the >> compiler and the standard library and the community would take stewardship >> of the core libraries through separate channels. >> > > My understanding is that the server working group, and all such work > groups, will be presenting their proposals here for approval, and that all > API changes in the Swift open source project go through this list. > That sounds like it would spam the general list a lot? Wouldn’t a more decentralized model mitigate the “we don’t have the energy/attention to devote to this” complaint? Also as a gauge of interest, I’m wondering who here would like to work on a core library if a campaign to build some was started now. > > But as long as no one with enough reputation starts Swifts equivalent of >>> boost, there won't be a set of established libraries for basic data >>> structures and algorithms outside the stdlib. >>> >>> For anyone who thinks there's no need for a standard lib that is not the >>> stdlib, have a look at >>> https://developer.apple.com/documentation/glkit/glkquaternion-pc6 >>> https://developer.apple.com/documentation/scenekit/scnquaternion >>> https://developer.apple.com/documentation/coremotion/cmquaternion >>> :-( >>> >>> Tino >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
