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

Reply via email to