in theory this could happen but if you ask me this is such an exceedingly rare case that i don’t count much net benefit from it. most ithing users (that i know) avoid ios updates like hell but have automatic app updates turned on. so 99% of the time i would expect the app version to be more recent than the library version.
On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Slava Pestov <spes...@apple.com> wrote: > > > 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> wrote: > >> Proposal link: 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> wrote: >> >> The proposal is available here: >> >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposa >> ls/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 >> >> 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 >> ... >> 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 >> 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
