> • What is your evaluation of the proposal?
Very large +1 in general. I really wanted to see this happen in Swift 4. I’m
very happy that it’s up for review right at the beginning of the Swift 5
That said, I do think the concern others have voiced regarding implicit
synthesis has some merit. Most languages I am familiar with that synthesize
memberwise implementations do so using an explicit request (`deriving` or
similar). It adds a small amount of boilerplate in exchange for precise
control. It seems to me that this tradeoff is in line with Swift’s motto of
clarity over concision. If we do make a change to this proposal we should also
make the same change for basic enums as well as Codable for the sake of
> • Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change
> to Swift?
Yes. Manually writing memberwise implementations is a big enough annoyance
that it can influence designs. For example, a library author may be more
likely to try and avoid requiring user types to conform when users are required
to write those conformances manually.
> • Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
Very much so.
> • If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature,
> how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
It is very similar, although as mentioned, it might make sense to require
explicit opt-in to memberwise synthesis.
> • How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
> reading, or an in-depth study?
Quick glance this time around, but I have participated heavily in the previous
swift-evolution mailing list