> On Dec 24, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Kelvin Ma via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > why can’t we just remove inlineable functions from ABI altogether? if the > argument is that app code won’t be able to take advantage of improved > implementations in future library versions i don’t think that makes sense at > all i would assume client code gets recompiled much more often than library > code and their updates are much more likely to be downloaded by users than > library updates.
This is not necessarily true. If Swift were to ship with the OS, updating the OS might install a new Swift standard library without updating all of your apps. Slava > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > Proposal link: > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md > > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md> > What is your evaluation of the proposal <>? > > -1 > > The proposal puts all the emphasis on the programmer. It is better for the > compiler to decide if something is to be inclined both across modules and > within modules. > > If something is made public then it should be fixed for a given major version > number. No need for extra annotation. > > A module system that allows versioning is a better solution. > > Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to > Swift? > > Yes significant but wrong solution > > Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? > > No, cluttering up declarations is completely against the clarity of Swift. > For example who other than people on this group will understand > @inline(never) @inlinable. > > If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do > you feel that this proposal compares to those? > > Yes C and C++ and found the equivalent of these annotations problematic. In > Java they eliminated all this and let the compiler do the work. In practice > this works much better. > > Perhaps the compiler should publish the SIL or LLVM for all public functions. > Analogous to Java’s class files. This sort of system works really will, much > better than C and C++. > > How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or > an in-depth study? > > Followed the discussions and read the proposal. The proposal doesn’t seem to > encompass all the discussions. It would be nice if the proposal had a much > more extensive summary of alternatives suggested. > -- Howard. > > On 20 Dec 2017, at 7:19 pm, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > >> The proposal is available here: >> >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md >> >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md> >> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All review >> feedback should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at: >> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review >> manager. >> >> When replying, please try to keep the proposal link at the top of the >> message: >> >> Proposal link: >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md >> >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md> >> ... >> Reply text >> ... >> Other replies >> What goes into a review of a proposal? >> >> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review >> through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of >> Swift. >> >> When reviewing a proposal, here are some questions to consider: >> >> What is your evaluation of the proposal? >> >> Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to >> Swift? >> >> Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? >> >> If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do >> you feel that this proposal compares to those? >> >> How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or >> an in-depth study? >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
