> On Aug 8, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Paul Cantrell via swift-evolution
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> Perhaps I am too optimistic, and core team members correct me if I am
> speaking out of turn here, but…
> I imagine that the core team will assist in providing implementations for
> proposals that are crucial to the progress of the language and/or highly
> popular — regardless of whether the proposal was authored by the core team or
> a community member.
> From what I know of the team, they’re not going to let a good idea languish
> just because of the name that’s in the author field. I’m sure they _are_
> going to strategically prioritize what gets attention, and that’s not a bad
Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic but I see this change as enhancing
collaboration between idea-level and code-level evolution. Requiring a
Ensures a proof of concept that the proposed change (like expanding `Self` to
classes) is realistic and possible.
Ensures that the Swift codebase impact can be measured at the time the proposal
Encourages multi-author proposal teams, comprised of people who understand code
impact as well those who can express the importance of the language expression
from a user side.
Provides real world "road testing" of proposed toolchain enhancements, letting
the changes be "tuned" before proposal. This minimizes adoption regrets,
because the beta toolchain can be used with real code. (As with the tuples and
Upfront costs *will* be higher. Not only do you have to believe that a change
is good, you must develop a working group that includes coders to create a
prototype without any guarantee that the change will pass muster.
Finding those coders and convincing them this will be a great change means that
proposals will naturally skew towards Apple-driven rather than wider
community-driven. However it does not exclude the latter, especially for
passionate proposals that can find the coders to champion them.
swift-evolution mailing list