yeah among people i know most ios updates are accidental. unless you count the one time my friend updated because her phone automatically downloaded the iso and it was taking up like 5 gb and she had no space left. the last times i remember anyone willingly updating their iphone was the ios7 update and the one that gave us all the new emojis. personally mine’s been pestering me about ios 11.2.1 for a long ass time and i’m actually relatively good about updating ios because people don’t get the echo text effect when i send it. also i’m sure the apple slowing down old iphones news isn’t helping much lol
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 4:19 AM, Jean-Daniel <mail...@xenonium.com> wrote: > Look like we don’t know the same users. > I don’t know a single user that didn’t update it’s device at least once > since he bought it, even if some may avoid the latest update when there > device grow old though. > > Le 25 déc. 2017 à 05:46, Kelvin Ma via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> a écrit : > > 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/p >>> roposals/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 > > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
