That's pretty much the same as this proposal except you don't have the new keyword. I'm not sure why that really makes a difference, since they're obviously paired, and it would limit existing libraries from declaring exhaustive enums until they've moved entirely to Swift 5 mode. I think the current proposal makes sense as is.
Jordan > On Sep 16, 2017, at 01:55, David Hart <da...@hartbit.com> wrote: > > I’m still very much bothered by having 2 new keywords. I would really prefer > the following plan: > > Exhaustive by default in Swift 4 > No new keyword in Swift 4 to change that behaviour > Non-exhaustive by default outside the module in Swift 5 > exhaustive keyword to change the default behaviour > > Like that, we don’t need nonexhaustive. > > Thoughts? > David. > >> On 13 Sep 2017, at 21:16, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> Proposal updated, same URL: >> https://github.com/jrose-apple/swift-evolution/blob/non-exhaustive-enums/proposals/nnnn-non-exhaustive-enums.md >> >> <https://github.com/jrose-apple/swift-evolution/blob/non-exhaustive-enums/proposals/nnnn-non-exhaustive-enums.md>. >> >> Thanks again for all the feedback so far, everyone! >> Jordan >> >> >>> On Sep 12, 2017, at 17:55, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, I got distracted by other tasks! Both the discussion here and within >>> Apple has moved towards making "non-exhaustive" the default, which, to be >>> honest, I too think is the best design. I'll update the proposal today to >>> reflect that, though I still want to keep both the "nonexhaustive" and >>> "exhaustive" keywords for Swift 4 compatibility for now (or whatever we end >>> up naming them). The compatibility design is a little less ambitious than >>> Brent's; as currently proposed, Swift 4 mode continues to default to >>> 'exhaustive' all the time, even in the actual Swift 5 release. >>> >>> I still want to respond to Brent's points directly, but I think you and >>> Vladimir have done a good job discussing them already. I'll send out the >>> updated proposal tomorrow, after I have a little more time to think about >>> #invalid. >>> >>> Thanks for putting time into this! >>> Jordan >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 9, 2017, at 17:34, Rod Brown <rodney.bro...@icloud.com >>>> <mailto:rodney.bro...@icloud.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Jordan, >>>> >>>> Do you have any other thoughts about the ongoing discussion here, >>>> especially regarding Chris’ comments? As you’re the one pushing this >>>> forward, I’d really like to know what your thoughts are regarding this? >>>> >>>> - Rod >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
