Re: [swift-evolution] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

[Kelvin Ma via swift-evolution]

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  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  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-

Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE 0192 - Non-Exhaustive Enums

[Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution]

> On Dec 22, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Cheyo Jose Jimenez  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 11:12 PM, Cheyo Jimenez  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 2:58 PM, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> The review of "SE 0192 - Non-Exhaustive Enums" begins now and runs through 
>>> January 3, 2018.
>>> 
>>> The proposal is available here:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0192-non-exhaustive-enums.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/0192-non-exhaustive-enums.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?
>>> 
>> +1 except for the name. @frozenExposed @fixedMembers @frozenMembers. 
>> preferably something that aligns with the other notion of not being able to 
>> add public members to structs. This will help treat structs with static 
>> members in the same way which would be ideal.  I don't think enums should 
>> have their own attitude.
>>> Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to 
>>> Swift?
>>> 
>> don't know. im not a library author. ill defer to other library authors. 
> 
> I want to revise my review here. While I am not a library author I am a 
> library consumer. 
> 
> Having the ability treat a non exhaustive enum as exhaustive should be 
> introduced with this. I like the idea of a 
> `final switch`
> 
> I think it communicate clearly that I want this to be treated as exhaustive 
> even if it is already exhaustive. Having something like future, unknowns 
> would be weird to me. 
> 
> Another option would be being able to cast a enum as exhaustive. I am not 
> sure how that would work. I do not like switch!  

Preferably I’d like to say: 

switch (@exhaustive x){...}

Would this be allowed?

let @exhaustive myEnum=  x

typealias  @exhaustive Y = X

if let @exhaustive x = x {
 switch x {...} // exhaustive here. 
}

Could this be addressed in the proposal? 

>>> Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>>> 
>> yes. 
>>> If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how 
>>> do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
>>> 
>> n/a
>>> How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or 
>>> an in-depth study?
>>> 
>> followed the previous discussion. read the proposal. 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ted Kremenek
>>> Review Manager
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [swift-evolution] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

[Jean-Daniel via swift-evolution]

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 
>  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  > wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 24, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Kelvin Ma via swift-evolution 
>> > 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 
>> > 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 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>>> The proposal is available here:
>>> 
>>> 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 
>>> 
>>> 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