Apologies, I may have misunderstood you. What I wanted to say is that I see no problem allowing "dangerous" stuff that may be abused. What we shouldn't allow is features that are bug-prone, but this proposal is not that.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Tino Heth <2...@gmx.de> wrote: > > During the discussion, people emphasized that dynamic features would be >> useful for more than Python interop, so if PyVal is the only way to get >> those benefits… I have no fear of JS-Bridges utilizing Python, or >> JSON-libraries build on top of PyVal — I just said that I don’t think it’s >> possible to prevent all abuses (adding restrictions might even cause abuse). >> >> > So what if they do this highly theoretical thing? Is this going to be a > superior way of programming? If yes, then let's all do it! If not, then a > superior solution will eventually emerge. Are you afraid that the community > will be "tainted" by bad code? That Foundation will be rewritten with > PyVals? And then you will be forced to write in PyVals too? What's the > issue here? > > What’s wrong with my formulation when I write „I have no fear“ so that > there are questions if I’m afraid afterwards? ;-) > Once again: I just said that the proposed restriction won’t be able to > prevent all abuse, which was claimed in an older post. > So I“m so un-afraid, I’d even prefer the more „dangerous“ (I don’t think > so) variant without artificial restrictions. >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution